Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Copy ordered
of Clause 5 of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill, showing the effect of the Amendments proposed to be moved in Committee on behalf of His Majesty's Government."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION

Accounts ordered
relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1951."—[Mr. Rhodes.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Dockyard Employees, Portsmouth (Pay)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many employees in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, earn £4 15s. or less per week.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Five hundred and four workpeople at Portsmouth Dockyard receive a regular weekly wage of £4 15s. or less. Overtime, work on payment by results and allowances for exceptional working conditions bring the weekly earnings of about 56 per cent. of this number to more than £4 15s. Juveniles and women are excluded from these figures.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister consider that £4 15s. is an adequate wage, bearing in mind that the lowest paid agricultural worker gets £5 a week?

Mr. Edwards: Up to the recent wage increase in the ship-building and engineering industries this wage was more or less

the same as that paid by private industry, but in any case the trade unions are now considering the question of wage increases.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can my hon. Friend say when the present negotiations for increases are likely to be concluded, in view of the natural anxiety of dockyard employees?

Mr. Edwards: An offer of increased pay has been made to the trade union side of the S.T.J.C., and we are now awaiting a decision from the trade union side.

Mr. Awbery: Is my hon. Friend aware that the unskilled workers in His Majesty's dockyards were the lowest paid unskilled workers in the country during the years the Tories were in power?

Construction Programme

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) in view of our present defence commitments, how far the number of fleet destroyers being converted to fast antisubmarine frigates has been increased;
(2) how far the building programme for new fast anti-submarine frigates has now been increased.

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any further statement to make on the new construction programme.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): I regret I am not yet in a position to make a statement about these matters, but I hope that it will be possible to do so soon.

Mr. Watkinson: I apologise if my supplementary is a little long. In view of the effect of this matter on our allies, and particularly the United States of America, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, with all the seriousness at my command, whether a statement will be made in the very near future, possibly before certain decisions which may well be taken with the United States, perhaps in a week's time? May we expect a statement in the next few days?

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman had an answer on that point from the Lord President yesterday. As far as the


Navy is concerned, as the House knows, a number of orders for additional ships have already been placed. I am not yet in a position to give a full picture.

Commander Noble: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he himself will make a further statement on the Navy, or will it be included in the one which we are expecting any day now from the Minister of Defence?

Mr. Callaghan: That question had better be addressed to those who decide those matters.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In any case, will not a full picture be at the disposal of the House when we discuss the Navy Estimates?

Mr. Callaghan: Certainly, by the time they come along I should hope to be in a position to give the whole story.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Could the Minister say why he is not in a position to give the whole story now? Is it because he has not got the information, or is it because Government policy precludes him from giving it?

Mr. Callaghan: It is because there is a very long-term programme under consideration. No one can complain that the Admiralty have not been extremely forthright in the way in which they have dealt with their share of the programme.

Mr. Watkinson: As we all know that additions will have to be made to the present construction programme, could not the Parliamentary Secretary at least say that urgent negotiations and discussions are now taking place with a view to settling an increased programme?

Mr. Callaghan: I should have thought that was implicit in what was said yesterday by the Lord President of the Council.

A.A. Gunnery Equipment

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are being taken to standardise anti-aircraft gunnery equipment between the United States Navy and our own.

Mr. Callaghan: There is a full exchange of information on anti-aircraft gunnery equipment between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy, and

all possible steps are being taken to standardise new equipment.

Mr. Watkinson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that certain classes of modern British destroyers, such as the Battle class, are fitted with U.S.A. gunnery equipment? The position is, therefore, that proper standardisation—[HON. MEMBERS:"Speech."] Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what steps are being taken to avoid any difficulties, because—

Mr. Speaker: This is going beyond the limits of a supplementary question. I wish supplementaries could he shorter.

Mr. Watkinson: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether any steps are being taken in connection with American gunnery equipment now fitted in our ships? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Aircraft (Design)

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what types of aircraft now in service in the Fleet Air Arm were designed expressly for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Callaghan: The Barracuda, the Firebrand, the Firefly, the Sea Otter and the Sturgeon.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is the possibility of a certain lack of zeal in his Department in trying to get original designs of aircraft for the Navy, as opposed to modifying extensively aircraft which are redundant or not required or are not good enough for the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. New types coming in are designed for naval purposes.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: All of them?

Aircraft (Deck Landings)

Surgeon Lieut. - Commander Bennett: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress is being made in the development of a


standard technique and practice of deck landing in British and American aircraft carriers.

Mr. Callaghan: Complete standardisation has been achieved between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy in this matter.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: In view of the considerable disparity of landing-on rates and accident rates under this technique between British and American carriers, can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that any modifications needed for the standardisation to be made a success in this country will be done by modifications of aircraft rather than of technique?

Mr. Callaghan: Standardisation was achieved some time ago. The process has been going on for a very long time.

Captain Ryder: Are we standardising the American system rather than our own?

Mr. Callaghan: It is standardisation by mutual agreement.

Home Fleet (Manning)

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of a shortage of personnel for manning the Home Fleet; and what steps he is taking to remedy existing deficiencies.

Mr. Callaghan: There is no general shortage of men in the Home Fleet, but we need more senior ratings in certain branches. The remedies now being taken for this are acceleration of the training and advancement of younger men, the granting of a bounty of £100 to men who re-engage to complete time for pension, and the re-entry of experienced men.

Mr. Stevens: Is it not true that personnel were taken from the Home Fleet to reinforce the complements of ships in the Far East, particularly near Korea?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, that is the normal process. When ships in the Far East needed strengthening men were taken from the Home Fleet for that purpose.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it not a fact that one of the major obstacles to the adequate manning of the Fleet is the fact that there has been no efficient revision of the pensions structure?

Security Arrangements, Chatham Dockyard

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the criticisms made by the magistrates concerning the security arrangements at Chatham Dockyard; and what steps he has taken to meet the points referred to in such criticisms.

Mr. W. Edwards: Yes, Sir. The arrangements in force are being reviewed once more in order to see what further safeguards would be justified, having regard to the cost in money and manpower of additional controls.

Brigadier Medlicott: Having regard to the incident on which these particular criticisms were based, and to other incidents of a rather disturbing character, may we have the assurance that special vigilance will be shown in this matter?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir, I think I can safely give that assurance. I ought to point out to the House, also, that there are thousands of workpeople going in and out of the dockyards each day, and that the number of cases up to now—though we are not complacent about it—seems extremely small.

Duty-Free Tobacco

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the sale of duty-free cigarettes and tobacco to the personnel of Royal Naval Air Stations.

Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to say that naval personnel at all R.N. air stations will be able to have an allowance of duty-free tobacco (including cigarettes) by the middle of this year at the latest.

Pensions (Payment)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will ensure that the pensions of Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel are not unduly held up when they leave the Service, as this practice causes hardship to pensioners.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, and the present procedure is being reviewed once more to make sure that delays are reduced to a minimum.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the great hardship which is caused by a man's not getting his pension immediately he comes out? I raised two points recently with him on that. Will he please try to see that in future men get their pensions within a fortnight?

Mr. Callaghan: In the great majority of cases the amount of pension earned is notified to the man immediately prior to his retirement, and payment is commenced well within a month of the termination of his service.

Air Arm (Pilots)

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the present shortage of pilots in the Air Branch; and what steps he is taking to remedy this.

Mr. Callaghan: The present deficiency of pilots is being remedied in the following ways. Basic pay and flying pay has been increased, and for short service officers an increased gratuity is payable on leaving the Service. Schemes for ensuring civil employment on leaving the Navy are in operation or are being worked out. Permanent commissions are given to extended service officers, and the ages of entry to short service commissions widened. An offer has been made to former naval pilots to re-enter for four years. National Service men may be trained to fly, and publicity has been intensified.

Commander Noble: Is it too early yet for the hon. Gentleman to say whether there have been any satisfactory results from all these steps?

Mr. Callaghan: I cannot give any figures yet.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the effect has been on recruiting for flying duties of the granting in September of flying pay?

Mr. Callaghan: I think it would be dangerous to give any indication of longterm trends so far.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the offer of four years re-entry is not popular in the Air Branch of the Navy? Is he further aware that the system of promising an extension

of the permanent commissions, which does not ultimately materialise, does not provide the pilots who are required?

Mr. Callaghan: So far as the first point is concerned, if the hon. Gentleman will let me know why, I shall be glad to look at the scheme again. So far as the second point is concerned, I do not think that the Navy can bind itself to offering permanent commissions to everybody who serves on extended service.

Atlantic Treaty Powers (Co-ordination)

Captain Ryder: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements exist for the co-ordination or command of naval forces of the Atlantic Treaty Powers in the event of hostilities; and whether it is proposed that Allied naval commanders should be appointed for the areas concerned.

Mr. Callaghan: The arrangements being made cover the naval forces of all Atlantic Treaty Powers, and there must be common agreement to publication of command organisation details. No mutual decision has been taken in the matter of publication.

Captain Ryder: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether General Eisenhower has any connection at all with naval organisation, or is it proposed to appoint a similar naval commander?

Mr. Callaghan: If the details were published I am sure that that point would be included.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that co-ordination of command or co-ordination of Forces without co-ordination of policy can be a very dangerous thing?

Sir Ronald Ross: Has any decision been taken, or have any mutual arrangements been arrived at, about who is to command, even if it is not possible to publish that information?

Mr. Callaghan: This is a continuous work that has been going on for many months, and I should not care to indicate now the precise point that has been reached.

Captain Ryder: Can we be assured that a suitable organisation is, in fact, in existence?

Mr. Callaghan: I can certainly assure the House that this has been the subject of continuous study, and that a number of arrangements have been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING

Reception, South-East England

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the unsatisfactory radio reception in South-East England, he is prepared to suspend the collection of licence fees in this area until the reception is improved.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: While it is quite impossible for the residents of this area to receive any of the B.B.C's. services because of interference and bad reception, why should they have to pay the present licence fee? They ought to have compensation.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that one programme is received very clearly in that area. I can give the hon. Gentleman this, I hope, helpful information: the Russians have now undertaken to prevent the interference which is now taking place.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reception in this area has been the subject of widespread complaint, and that although representations have been made to his Department there is a feeling that those representations are not being adequately considered in his Department? When the right hon. Gentleman says that one programme is well received, is he aware that the station is Luxembourg?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. are responsible in this matter, and they inform me that the Light Programme can be adequately received there. Complaints have been received about the reception of the Home Service. I told the House some time ago that representations were being made to the Russians, who were causing interference. We have now received a reply from them, in which they say they will take steps to obviate the interference.

Old Age Pensioners (Wireless Licence Fee)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now consider dispensing with the radio licence fee for the old age pensioners over 70 years of age.

Mr. Ness Edwards: After careful and sympathetic consideration, the Government is unable to agree to the issue of broadcast receiving licences free to old age pensioners.

Mr. De la Bère: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman abandon his half-thoughts? Why does not he do something practicable? This suggestion is not impracticable. Is he not aware that there is no justification for his refusal?

285.2 Metre Wavelength

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet received a reply from the Roumanian People's Republic to his representations about their use of wavelength 285.2 metres; and what action he is taking in the matter.

Mr. Ness Edwards: No reply has yet been received from the Roumanian Administration. A further telegram has been sent.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Has it got through? Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the telegram was sent, whether it has yet been received back through the dead letter office, and whether, having received a reply from the Russian Government, he has any hope of receiving a reply from the Roumanian Government about the interference on this wavelength?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am hopeful. We sent a third telegram to the Russians. We have sent two to the Roumanians.

Television Service (Breakdowns)

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Postmaster-General how many and what total duration of, breakdowns occurring in the British Broadcasting Corporation Television Service during 1950 were due to faults in the General Post Office lines or radio links; and what percentage, both in number and duration, were these of the total breakdowns.

Mr. Ness Edwards: In 1950 nine breakdowns in vision, with a total duration of 49 minutes, were due to faults in Post Office lines or radio links; I understand from the B.B.C. that these amounted to 7.1 per cent. and 5.1 per cent., respectively, of the totals. Additionally, there was one breakdown of five minutes in sound associated with television due to a fault in a Post Office link.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the rate of breakdown in the Television Service is 10 times the rate in the United States, and is causing concern to many thousands of television licence holders who have to gaze at the notice. "Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible"?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I was asked about the amount of delay due to Post Office faults, and I have said that there was a delay of only a few minutes over the whole period due to Post Office faults.

Government Policy

Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Lord President of the Council if he has any statement to make as to the Government's policy for the future of broadcasting.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. It would be premature for me to make a statement until we have been able to give thorough consideration to the many and important recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee. This will necessarily take some 'time, but we will make our views known as soon as possible with a view to full Parliamentary discussion before final decisions are taken. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of the great public service which Lord Beveridge and his colleagues have rendered, and for the valuable report—

Mr. Pickthom: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen it?

Mr. Morrison: That is the kind of comment I would expect from the hon. Member—which they have submitted after an inquiry which has made exceptionally heavy calls upon them all.

Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult Parliament before the Government announce their policy in this matter, and when does he expect that we shall have a debate?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot say; but it must be some time. It is desirable that the public and Members should have an opportunity of arguing and debating the matter, and we ourselves must take some little time to consider it. Therefore, I should not like to give a date. We must remember that the existing Charter runs to the end of the year, and, therefore, there is time. I think that the Government must come to some provisional conclusion [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was asked that the Government should not do so, and I am saying that I think we should. In any case, the matter is not finally settled until the new Charter is dealt with later.

Sir I. Fraser: In view of the doubt—I do not say this offensively—whether the Government represent public opinion, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking the view of Parliament and, to that extent. of the nation on this matter?

Mr. Morrison: No Government can possibly live without taking into account the view of Parliament and the view of the nation. Governments live with Parliament; we cannot live a day longer than Parliament lets us.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

British Railways (Conveyance of Mails)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General how many times during the last 12 months he has made representations to British Railways about unsatisfactory service to his Department.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Post Office and British Railways are in the closest regular contact at all levels to ensure that the most satisfactory arrangements are made for the conveyance of mails by rail. Representations are made either in writing or orally as circumstances require, but a numerical record is not maintained.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied about the results of his representations, or has he given up nationalisation as hopeless?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, I am not satisfied with the consequences of the representations we have made, but I am sure that the railways are making every effort in these difficult times.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend refute entirely the inference in the question that the overall service given by British Transport is unsatisfactory in this respect?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If anything it is an improvement on the old system.

Savings Bank (Losses)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Postmaster-General how much money has been lost through fraud since the end of the war by the Post Office Savings Bank.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The amount lost during the period 1st July, 1945, to 31st December, 1950, was about £311,000. Of this amount nearly £250,000 was lost in the years 1946-48. I am glad to say that the safeguards which we have introduced during the last two or three years are having very satisfactory results and the current rate of loss is lower than it has been for many years.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the accounting arrangements which at one time made these losses possible are now adequate; and will he say whether the public will, within a short time, be relieved of the inconvenience of sending their book back at the completion of every page?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Sending the book back to the Department is really our only security against many of these frauds and I could not ask for a withdrawal of that arrangement.

National Guild of Motor Engineers

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of Post Office workers employed on his motor transport staffs now belong to the registered but unrecognised trade union known as the National Guild of Motor Engineers.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The latest figures submitted to me by the National Guild of Motor Engineers were equivalent to about 49.5 per cent. of the staff they seek to represent.

Mr. Fraser: In view of this figure, will the Postmaster-General now recognise this union, having read the Treasury document produced in 1949 about staff relations in the Civil Service?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a matter of major policy. One has to make up one's mind whether to encourage a multiplicity of unions and destroy trade unionism or whether to adopt a policy of conciliation and try to get the maximum co-operation and team-work inside this important service.

Mr. Fraser: Is it not known by the right hon. Gentleman that this union of motor transport staff in the Post Office, of which there are about 3,000 members, is completely absorbed at the moment in the larger union to which they are supposed to belong? The representations of these 3,000 men go almost unheard and are not put forward by the other 45,000 people in the P.O.U., who are concerned largely with telecommunications.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I invited this union to meet me. We had a discussion about the matter and I got for them all the means of representation they requested. Then, unfortunately, they would not agree to the final agreement, although they had given me authority to obtain a joint meeting of all parties concerned on the basis that there would be an agreement.

Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend take particular notice of the fact that the Opposition are continually pressing for the recognition of unions which have broken away from other organisations?

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is not the real question that arises in this case, whether a man shall have the right to choose to which union he shall belong or whether that right shall be given to the employer?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That has nothing to do with this matter. What has to be considered is whether there shall be effective trade union representation for the people engaged in the Post Office or whether we shall have a multiplicity of ineffective little groups.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Are we to take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he has decided to depart from the previous practice, and the practice which is observed in other Government Departments, that when a grade or a union can claim to represent a certain percentage of the grade they shall be recognised?

Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a complete misrepresentation.

Mr. Fraser: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Postal Collections

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement about the later postal collections and indicate which towns will enjoy these facilities.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Late evening collections have now been introduced in some 540 towns and will, I hope, be introduced in a further 100 or so by the end of January. Recruitment difficulties have yet to be overcome in some places, including London; and in a few others sickness has caused postponement of the date of introduction.

Wing Commander Bullus: Does the late collection apply to all the boxes in those towns and cities or only the central boxes?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There will be selected boxes.

Mr. Keeling: Does the Postmaster-General still hope to redeem his promise of later collections in London early in the new year?

Mr. Ness Edwards: As soon as we can get over the manpower difficulty in London and recruit the postmen we shall introduce it.

Armed Forces, Korea and Malaya (Parcels)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Postmaster-General how many post-free Christmas parcels were sent to members of the Armed Services in Korea and Malaya, respectively, and what was the total cost to the Post Office.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The numbers of postage-free Christmas parcels sent by air to members of the Forces in the Korean operations and Malaya were 14,322 and 2,091, respectively; and the overall cost of the concession was of the order of £37,000, of which £1,000 was borne on Post Office account.

Wing Commander Bullus: Does the Postmaster-General agree that the general public observed the rule and that there was no abuse of this concession?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There was amazingly little.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the making of any further concessions for postage to the troops in Korea, particularly of printed matter?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is really a matter for the Minister of Defence. The cost is borne on the Ministry of Defence Vote, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Nicholson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now introduced a much wider question. It does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper. which dealt only with Christmas mail.

Press Telegrams (Delay)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he is aware that Press cables dispatched at urgent rates from Melbourne on 22nd December took up to four hours to reach London; and what steps he is taking to improve the service;
(2) what complaints he has received from the Council of the Empire Press Union on delays of news transmissions by telegram; and what action is being taken to meet such complaints.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am aware that bad wireless operating conditions towards the end of last year caused delays to many overseas telegrams, including Press telegrams, to and from Australia and New Zealand. These difficulties were increased by cable interruptions. The Empire Press Union made representations on 2nd November last about heavy delays in sending messages, especially to Australia and New Zealand. Urgent cable repairs have been made and I am considering means of improving circuit capacity to and from this country.

Mr. Deedes: Is the Postmaster-General aware how very seriously this is regarded in Australia; that for 27 days in December the service was seriously disrupted; that consideration is now being given to transferring the service to America, and that if that is done London will lose its place as the news centre?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This is due entirely to the wireless circuit. There were bad radio conditions and the stuff could not get through. We are using the Atlantic cable to try to get the stuff through to Australia and New Zealand, because we regard these delays as the cause of a great sense of grievance in the Dominions.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delays in the service cannot be put down entirely to technical faults; that they are due partly to the new set-up, for which he is not entirely responsible, and will he take the initiative in promoting a conference to see what can be done? Further, was the matter raised at all, either formally or informally, with the Dominion Premiers when they were here?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot answer the last part of that question. With regard to the first part, I have already taken the initiative and called a conference.

Mr. Deedes: In view of the importance of this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Russell: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to speed up the transmission of news between Great Britain and Empire countries.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to earlier Questions on this subject, copies of which I am sending to him.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the greatly increased delay in the transmission of Press cables from this country to the Dominions since Electra House was put under the Post Office; what is the reason for this delay; and how he proposes to remedy it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Delays occurred towards the end of last year to many telegrams, including Press telegrams, sent from this country to Australia and New Zealand. These delays were mainly due to bad wireless operating 'conditions and were increased by cable interruptions. A marked increase in the number of telegrams passing over the Commonwealth telecommunication network recently has

reduced the margin of reserve against interruptions, and means of improving this margin are under consideration with other administrations concerned.

Mr. Hollis: In view of the fact that the domestic Press cannot get any paper, and the Dominion Press cannot get any news, how is it that His Majesty's Government claim adequate publicity for their beneficent activities? The right hon. Gentleman says that consideration is being given to this matter. Why was not that fact mentioned at the Commonwealth Conference?

Mr. Ness Edwards: One of the reasons why we are having this trouble, is that the Commonwealth is getting more news.

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Postmaster-General what were the average and maximum delays on Press telegrams between Great Britain and Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, respectively, during November and December. 1950.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Under the operating conditions which existed up to the middle of October last, it was usual for ordinary Press messages from Great Britain to be cleared within two or three hours of the time of handing in. Under the difficult conditions of last November and December, delays on ordinary Press messages occasionally amounted to 12 hours to Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, and to 30 hours in the case of Australia.

Brigadier Rayner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and his previous answers on this matter, another example of how inefficiency always follows closely on the heels of nationalisation?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. This service is not nationalised.

Letters, London (Delivery)

Mr. Russell: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that during the fortnight before Christmas many business letters were not delivered in the London area until five days after posting; and if he will take steps to ensure that in future they are not held up for so long by Christmas mail.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Owing to the enormous seasonal increase in the volume


of traffic; some delay to letters cannot be avoided during the week before Christmas; but I am not aware of exceptional delays prior to that week. Every effort is and will be made to deliver correspondence as speedily as possible, but it is not practicable to segregate business letters for special acceleration.

Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it took five days for many letters posted in the East London area to reach addresses in Willesden? Does he not think that rather unreasonable, and will he look into the question of separating letters bearing penny stamps from those with 24½d. stamps?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Because of the inexperienced staff we had to recruit some delay was to be expected. We will do our best to watch this matter in the future.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: To minimise some of the delay, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a late evening collection on Boxing Day?

International Air Mail (Rate)

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Postmaster-General what percentage of the rate of six gold francs per tonne/kilometre, as agreed between the Universal Postal Union and the International Air Transport Association, he pays to British Overseas Airways Corporation for the carriage of air mail on long haul services.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no agreement between the Universal Postal Union and the International Air Transport Association covering conveyance rates paid by postal administrations to their national air-operators. I am writing to the hon. Member to explain the. position more fully.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at the B.O.A.C. report, which says, in paragraph 99, that if proper rates had been paid, their total revenue would have increased by £3 million? Is this statement' incorrect, or is the Postmaster-General using his unique position to under-cut the rate which he had agreed in international conference?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. We never agreed the rate in international conference. These are commercial agreements, freely negotiated, and I am quite satisfied that what I have told the House is correct.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the rate is per ton mile?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have not the figure before me. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a Question on the Order Paper?

Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend now consider making an increase, however slight, in this rate, to help B.O.A.C. in their attempt to reduce their deficit?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am prepared to pay a proper rate to B.O.A.C. and no more.

Temporary Postmen (Pay)

Mrs. Elizabeth Braddock: asked the Postmaster-General why the temporary postmen employed during the Christmas rush are not paid overtime rates on the same basis as permanent postmen.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The week-day hourly rate paid by agreement with the staff association includes a factor for overtime. Rate and a half is paid on Sundays and Christmas Day.

Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that postmen who are taken on temporarily for holidays very often have to work much harder than permanent postmen, and resent the fact that their overtime rate is much lower than the rate paid to permanent postmen?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Lady wants me to pay an ordinary hourly rate and the overtime rate she is really asking that the men should have a reduction in wages. I think it would be better if we left this to the trade unions concerned.

Continental Letters (Postage)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that large numbers of letters from Great Britain to the Continent are still being stamped only 2½d. instead of 4d.; and if, in view of the inconvenience and loss which this causes the addressees, he will, by broadcast and other means, make the rates more widely known.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes. Sir. Full use has been, and will continue to be, made Of all available means, including Press and broadcast notices, to bring the correct rates of postage to the notice of the public.

Sub-Postmasters

Mr. Remnant: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to review the remuneration of sub-postmasters; and when he anticipates making a statement.

Mr. Ness Edwards: This matter is under discussion with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and I regret I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. Remnant: This has been under discussion for some time. Is the Postmaster-General aware that owing to the long hours worked in the telegraphic sub-post offices, and the low pay, sub-post offices are rapidly becoming known as sweat shops?

Mr. Ness Edwards: As these matters are the result of freely negotiated agreements, and another agreement is now being negotiated, it would be quite improper for me to make any comment in the House.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sub-postmasters, who give their services in the villages, are so tied to their jobs that it is very difficult for them to attend such conferences? Will he inquire in some of the remote villages what they think about it?

Mr. Ness Edwards: I have been to some of these conferences and it is not difficult for them to get there, as I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. Remnant: asked the Postmaster-General the number of resignations by sub-postmasters during the last convenient 12 months; and the number of sub-post offices now awaiting the appointment of a sub-postmaster.

Mr. Ness Edwards: There were 1,606 resignations during 1950 and 287 vacancies at the end of the year.

Mr. Remnant: Would the Postmaster-General not agree that if he would disgorge a little of his excessive profit, he would find it much easier to fill the posts?

Mr. Ness Edwards: There is a tremendous change over in all forms of industry, and the change over is not really excessive.

Mr. Iain MacLeod: asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the recent protest meeting organised by the Eastern District Council of the National Federation of sub-postmasters on 10th December, 1950, to protest against the loss of mail work as a result of plans for the motorisation in rural areas; and whether he has any proposals to make for compensation to sub-postmasters.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. 1 am always ready to consider on its merits any case in which a sub-postmaster's remuneration is due to be reduced on account of reduction of work and serious hardship would result.

Mr. MacLeod: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, with reference to his answer to the last sentence of my Question, that in suitable cases he admits the principle of compensation?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Not the principle of compensation. But where a widow is looking after a sub-post office and, by taking certain work away from her, there is likely to be considerable financial hardship, I am prepared to look at the matter, and, if possible, effect some sort of compromise to relieve her hardship. I cannot, however, agree to the principle of compensation.

Greetings Telegrams, Korea

Mr. Hollis: asked the Postmaster-General why the cheap rate for greetings telegrams from Korea was withdrawn from British soldiers 12 hours after it had been instituted.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The notification to Korea was premature, but the special service of expeditionary Forces' messages from troops in Korea was, in fact, authorised a few days ago. The corresponding service from this country to Korea will be introduced next Monday.

Mr. Hollis: Does that mean that the notification was premature? Does it mean that troops were told that they could have greeting telegrams when, in fact, they could not? Is this not one of a large number of very serious errors on the part of the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Ness Edwards: One can understand the sort of conditions under which people are having to work in Korea, and we should not unduly complain about faults of this kind in such circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Operators (Pay)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General how much a girl under 21 years of age is paid during her time of training to become a telephone operator; what allowance is made for board and lodging; and what travel concessions are given.

Mr. Ness Edwards: The pay in London is from 49s. 6d. to 75s. 6d. a week, according to age. Civil Service negotiated scales apply to board and lodging and one free travel pass home is allowed.

Mr. Taylor: Is any undertaking given by these trainees that they will continue in the service of the Post Office for a reasonable time?

Mr. Ness Edwards: If we had an undertaking of that sort we could not enforce it. There is no undertaking.

St. Paul's Cray

Miss Hornsby-Smith: asked the Postmaster-General how many applications for a telephone installation have been received from the area of the London County Council estate at St. Paul's Cray; and how many of such applications have been met.

Mr. Ness Edwards: About 300, of which 81 have been met. In addition, five public call offices have been installed and two more are proposed.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Is the Postmaster-General aware that many of these applicants live in what are known as houses for professional classes; that they had telephones in their former residences and that it is a very great hardship to them not to be able to continue to have a telephone in their house for professional purposes at present? Is there any hope of these people being supplied with this service?

Mr. Ness EdwardS: This is a residential area. I am well aware of the hardship caused to these people and am doing what I can, but there are limits to the laying of new cables and the installation of new equipment.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Can the Postmaster-General assure us that the export of telephone equipment which is much needed at home has been stopped?

Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, I cannot give that assurance.

Mr. Colegate: Why not?

Wembley

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Postmaster-General how many applicants in the Borough of Wembley await the installation of telephones; and when they are likely to have this service.

Mr. Ness Edwards: One thousand six hundred and forty in the areas served by the Wembley, Corinthian and Arnold exchanges. Most of these applications will be met after the new exchange equipment is brought into service in about four months' time.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend, irrespective of the continuous pressure for telephone equipment in this country, do everything he possibly can to keep open our export market for this telephone equipment, upon which we depend so much?

Automatic Charges Register

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Postmaster-General when an automatically-controlled register of charges will be available at subscribers' premises in connection with telephone calls, such as has been in operation in Switzerland for many years.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Extensive development work is necessary in this country before such registers could be operative.

Mr. Freeman: Would the Postmaster-General consider installing some of these automatic registers on an experimental basis in different parts of the country?

Mr. Ness Edwards: This equipment would have to be specially designed, and that is why I say that extensive development work would be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINE WORKERS (MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Prime Minister whether representatives of the National Coal Board were present during his meeting with the National Union of Mine Workers on 3rd January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No. Sir.

Brigadier Rayner: As, on this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman went over the head of the National Coal Board, which he appointed, does it mean that he has lost faith in that body and equally lost faith in the other nationalised undertakings?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Member is entirely wrong. This meeting was undertaken with the full knowledge and approval of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Even though this meeting took place at the request of the National Coal Board, is it not a confession, to some extent, of failure in their relations with the miners?

The Prime Minister: Not the slightest. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that very often when difficulties have arisen meetings have been held by Prime Ministers, including my predecessor, when they desired to speak more widely to the people actually concerned. It was done in regard to the coal miners during the war, and it never showed any distrust. It was done also with the coal owners, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was pressed then about having shown distrust of the coal owners.

Mr. Pickthorn: How, since the National Coal Board was not to be pre-sent on this occasion, did the right hon.
Gentleman make sure that no day-to-day matters would be raised?

The Prime Minister: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means.

Hon. Members: Ask the Lord President of the Council.

The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to Questions in the House of Commons.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Service Men (Medical Examination)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Defence if he is aware of the widespread concern of the inadequate medical examination given to Service men prior to demobilisation, which tends to increase the number of healthy discharge reports

and react unfavourably on subsequent applications for pension.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I have been asked to reply. Arrangements are now in force in all three Services for a comprehensive medical survey of all officers and men to be carried out shortly before release or retirement. The result of this examination is carefuly recorded. Where, subsequently, a claim to pension arises, the applicant is examined by a Ministry of Pensions medical board, whose report, together with the applicant's Service history —including the report of the medical examination on release—and all other relevant evidence is considered before a decision is reached. Many claims succeed notwithstanding that the Service medical report records that nothing abnormal was discovered at the time it was made.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there is a large amount of evidence that the scanty medical examinations have been most unjust when illness becomes obvious after discharge? Doe he not think that the only fair system is: Fit for Service, fit for pension?

Mr. Strachey: If my hon. looks at my reply, he will see it is to the effect that the examination, which I cannot agree is scanty, before release or retirement is not the important factor in whether the claim for pension can succeed or not.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that medical examination on entering the Services is as comprehensive as he hopes to make the release examination?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Was not the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's original reply to the effect that the examination of pensions claims shows the necessity in many cases to contradict the results of the examination when the pensioner left the Services, indicating that these examinations are quite useless? Will he see that they are properly carried out?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. My last sentence was that "many claims succeed notwithstanding that the Service medical report records that nothing abnormal was discovered at the time it was made." But we fully agree that something may develop which may be considered attributable and which may be brought out at the Ministry of Pensions medical board examination.

Casualties, Korea

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Defence the latest figures of British casualties in Korea.

Mr. Strachey: The total British casualties sustained in the Korean operations up to midnight, 20th January, were 139 killed or died of wounds, 416 wounded and 258 missing. I am sure the House would wish to join with me in expressing the deep sympathy we all feel for the relatives of these men. I will, with permission, circulate a detailed state-ment in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Air Commodore Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about British prisoners of war. I assume that he has not received the information. Will he tell the House what representations he has made to get information on this very important subject?

Mr. Strachey: The missing, of course, includes the prisoners-of-war figure. Unfortunately, we do not know any more details than that. As I told the House yesterday, we have very little information and very great difficulties in getting information from the North Korean authorities.

Mr. Keeling: Does that mean that the Minister has no information that any single one of the missing are prisoners of war?

Mr. Strachey: I should want notice of that, but we have very little.

Captain Ryder: Has our Chargé d' Affaires in Peking been directed to take this matter up on the spot?

Mr. Strachey: I understand that the position is that the only authorities who will make any statement are the North Korean authorities, and they have stated that they are abiding by the Geneva Convention.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United Nations Forces are supplying the North Korean authorities with lists of prisoners captured by the South Koreans or the United Nations Forces?

Mr. Strachey: I understand that that is being done.

Sir Ralph Glyn: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures he has

been given include British volunteers for Red Cross stretcher work, who have been captured during these operations?

Mr. Strachey: I should like notice of that.

Mr. Nicholson: Has the Government been in communication with the International Red Cross authorities asking them to set up an organisation in that part of the world to trace prisoners?

Mr. Strachey: The North Korean authorities have been pressed to allow the Red Cross representatives access to prisoners of war, but without success.

Mr. Nicholson: Pressed by whom?

Mr. Strachey: By the United Nations authorities.

Following is the statement:


—
Navy
Army


Officers
Ratings and Other Ranks
Officers
Other Ranks


Killed
1
17
10
84


Died of Wounds
—
1
1
25


Wounded
4
46
26
340


Missing
1
26
14
217


ROYAL AIR FORCE—Nil

Home Defence

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Defence if he will set up a general home defence guard to be responsible for Home Guard and Civil Defence duties.

Mr. Strachey: This proposal has been carefully considered, but I am satisfied that, on balance, it would be undesirable.

Sir I. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think this an impossible arrangement to go on recruiting for Civil Defence with a promise that the people concerned can, in the event of war, immediately go over to the Home Guard? Does not this whole matter require to be gone into by the Service and Home Office Ministers at highest level?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The proposal in the hon. Member's Question would amount either to militarisation of the Civil Defence services, or, on the other hand, bringing the Home Guard under


the civil authority. We see great objections to either of those courses.

Brigadier Head: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into this matter again, because the present situation is interfering with Civil Defence recruiting and preparedness, and the Home Guard is not doing any good?

Mr. Strachey: It has been quite clearly stated that the Home Guard will not be raised until an emergency eventuates, and I do not, therefore, see why that should interfere with Civil Defence recruiting.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how he can describe our present condition if he does not call it an emergency?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the motives behind the proposal in this Question is that in certain parts of the country, such as the big cities, it is perhaps Civil Defence which has a priority call for part-time manpower, whereas in certain other districts in the countryside, where airborne landings could take place, the questions are more for the Home Guard?

Mr. Strachey: That may be so, but for the moment it is Civil Defence which has the priority. That is the only force which is being raised, and for which we are appealing for recruits.

Regulars (Extended Service)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the retention of certain categories of regular Service men for the indefinite period of the present emergency, he will amend the regulations which require married members of the Forces to have a minimum of 12 months still to serve in order to qualify their wives to join them in Germany.

Mr. Strachey: Such a concession would have to apply to all overseas theatres, and I regret that the shortage of shipping accommodation and, in some areas, of living accommodation makes it impracticable.

Mr. Profumo: Is the Minister aware that there are many fit men who now find themselves ineligible, because, on paper, they are due to come back within 12 months but may go on serving overseas

for the duration of a very lengthy crisis? Would the Minister of Defence take action which will rectify this injustice, and either bring these men home earlier or allow their wives to join them?

Mr. Strachey: I quite agree that a serious consideration arises here and that we will have to deal with it, but the hon. Member should await the announcement about the duration of this whole scheme.

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Defence when the present embargo on the discharge of regular personnel of His Majesty's Forces will be raised.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement on the length of time during which reservists recently recalled to the Colours will be required to serve with the Colours; and the time during which Regular members of the Forces whose engagements have expired will be retained with the Colours.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement regarding the length of time Reservists, and men compulsorily retained in the Forces on expiration of their normal period of service, will be required to serve.

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will consider setting a definite limit to the length of time a member of His Majesty's Forces will be required to serve after having completed both Colour and Reserve service.

Mr. Strachey: A statement on the Government's defence programme will be made next week. I anticipate that it will be possible to answer these Questions in that statement.

Korea (Press Censorship, Regulations)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Defence what form of censorship is exercised over the reports of war correspondents from Korea.

Mr. Strachey: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood).

Mr. Edelman: While fully recognising the need for censorship on security grounds, is it not the case that the present censorship in Korea is far more stringent and comprehensive than a comparable form of censorship during the Second World War? Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Supreme Commander to modify this censorship and enable the present trickle of news to become normal?

Mr. Strachey: We are considering these matters, but I think that the degree of censorship to be exercised must be the responsibility of the United Nations authorities on the spot.

Class Z Reservists (Recall)

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Minister of Defence whether in calling up the Z and equivalent reservists, he will adopt the principle of calling first those reservists with the shortest service; and what arrangements he will make to exempt those reservists working on rearmament projects.

Mr. Paget: asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement with regard to the recall of Class Z reservists.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement as to the recall to service of Class Z reservists.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement regarding the recall of Class Z reservists, indicating the numbers required; the conditions, including length and terms of service; and the principles upon which selection will be based.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is yet prepared to make a statement about the proposed call up of members of Z reserve.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Defence what is the Government's intention as to the calling up of Class Z reservists and the military or other mobilisation of those who wrongfully avoided military service in World War II.

Mr. Strachey: I invite hon. Members to await the statement on the Government's defence programme to be made next week.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: When working out this arrangement would the right hon.

Gentleman ensure that a tribunal is set up which may consider, in the national interests, whether it is advisable for a man to be called up or whether he should go on working on the re-armament projects on which he is engaged at present?

Mr. Strachey: All those detailed considerations had better await the comprehensive statement.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the statement to be made will deal explicitly with the Government's intentions in regard to the Z reservists?

Mr. Strachey: It will deal with the matters mentioned in the Questions.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: In view of the need to build up an effective Civil Defence force would the Minister consider making a statement whereby the Z reservists aged at least 40 or 37 years would be exempt from call in the first 12 months of hostilities, provided they are members of the Civil Defence service?

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman had better await the statement.

Troops, Europe (Command)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Minister of Defence if he will publish the text of the letter in which he has placed the British troops in Europe under the command of an American general.

Mr. Strachey: The text of my right hon. Friend's letter to the Chairman of the North Atlantic Council has already been released for publication and I am circulating a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it that that does not diminish in any way the responsibility of Ministers to this House?

Mr. Strachey: Not the legal constitutional responsibility, but it is an arrangement whereby certain British Forces are under the command of General Eisenhower.

Mr. Bellenger: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the same arrangements are being made as were made during the last war for courts martial, discipline and other matters of that nature, having regard to the fact that British


soldiers will be placed under American command?

Mr. Strachey: Our Forces will retain their code of discipline, their commanders will have courts-martial warrants and confirming powers, and the normal processes laid down in the Army Act will operate.

Following is a copy of the letter:

1st January, 1951.

"DEAR MR. MINISTER,

Following the approval by the North Atlantic Council, which met under your Excellency's Chairmanship in Brussels on 18th and 19th December, 1950, of the Report on the Creation of an Integrated Force for the Defence of Western Europe, including the appointment of a Supreme Commander, Europe, I am authorised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to confirm that they welcome wholeheartedly the appointment of General of the Army, Dwight D. Eisenhower, as Supreme Commander, Europe, and will take immediate steps, in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Report, to bring under his command those Forces which they propose to allocate to the Integrated Forces.

Yours sincerely,

(Signed) E. SHINWELL.

His Excellency Monsieur PAUL VAN ZEELAND."

Manpower (Organisation)

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Minister of Defence if he will review the use of manpower in the Service Departments in order to make more men available for active service.

Mr. Strachey: The Service Ministers are keenly alive to the importance of organising the manpower at their disposal in such a way as to achieve the greatest military effect.

Mr. Fisher: In that case, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the latest figures indicate that there is one man at the War Office for every 10 soldiers, one at the Air Ministry for every eight airmen, and one at the Admiralty for every four sailors? Does he regard that as satisfactory? Does he not think that the many Service personnel at desk jobs could be relieved, and the work given to Civil Service clerks, who would do it just as efficiently and at rather lower cost to the public?

Mr. Strachey: The degree to which civilians are employed on these tasks has been constantly extended. This matter has been very carefully considered by the staffs concerned in all three Departments.

BILL PRESENTED

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

"to provide that any power which is or was conferred on the Board of Trade by the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, or by the Export Guarantees Acts, 1939 to 1948. to give guarantees to or for the benefit of a person shall be taken to extend and have extended to the giving to him of certain similar undertakings in relation to the business of any company controlled by him, and to the giving of guarantees and undertakings to or for the benefit of any such company," presented by Mr. Harold Wilson; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Bottomley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION

FOOD SUPPLIES (CLEANLINESS)

Dr. Broughton: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 2nd February, I shall call attention to the need for the cleaner handling of food, and move a Resolution.

COMMONWEALTH AND EMPIRE PROBLEMS

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 2nd February, I shall call attention to the need for a permanent body to be created to consider the problems affecting the countries of the Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire, and move a Resolution.

COAL (UTILISATION)

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 2nd February, I shall call attention to the need for urgent measures to be taken for more efficient coal utilisation throughout industry, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Read the Third time, and passed.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law in regard to the protection of salmon and freshwater fish in Scotland, including the whole of the River Tweed, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under the said Act.

Resolution agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROHIBITION OF POACHING.)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "ten," and to insert "five."
During the Second Reading of the Bill, much sympathy was expressed for the individual who has been described as the traditional poacher. It may or may not have been very wise to express some of the sentiments that were then expressed. but they can be excused because the issues raised by the Bill would not have cropped up had the Bill followed a somewhat different pattern.
If we take what would be regarded as the serious view of the Committee, there will be general agreement that any person who fishes in waters, to which legal access may be obtained for a small payment, without first obtaining the necessary permit, is deserving of being treated as a law breaker and of suffering the appropriate penalty. The issue which is raised here is not of the penalty but the extent of the penalty proposed in the

Bill. It may be claimed that the payments that have to be made by those who desire to fish for salmon are in many cases very small indeed, and do not provide any reasonable excuse to an individual for not availing himself of a permit. It is true that the cost of a permit may be small in some cases, but it is not true that it is always small.
Take, for example, the river Machrie on the west side of Arran. The charge is £40 per month for the right to fish for salmon. Take the river Awe, bounded by the old Breadalbane estates; the charge is 100 guineas per month. The fisheries at Gatehouse of Fleet in the Solway are owned by the Forestry Commission. The charge there is £1,000 per year. Those are examples.

Major McCallum: May 1 interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I think he is slightly misinformed. The Breadalbane estates own no fishing grounds.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry if I did not make the point quite clear. I did not say that they owned fishing grounds. I referred to that portion of the river bounded by the estates.

Major McCallum: There are no estates.

Mr. Rankin: Well, the old ones, where the fishing rights have been let out to an individual who is now charging 100 guineas per month.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I really cannot see the relevance of these figures to the present question, which is the simple one of reducing the proposed fine from £10 to £5. I hope that the hon. Member and other hon. Members—

Mr. Rankin: Further to that—

The Chairman: Order. 1 hope that the hon. Member and other hon. Members will do what they can to expedite business on this Bill because I am afraid that it may otherwise take a very long time indeed.

Mr. Manuel: Surely the point made by my hon. Friend has a bearing on the case. If fishing facilities are prohibited by price it is an inducement to those who cannot afford the price to fish illegally.

Mr. Rankin: That was the point that I was trying to establish, that under this Clause we are seeking to increase the penalty which is imposed on the person whom we regard as the traditional poacher, and at the same time, because of the prohibitive charges for the right of fishing, we are providing an incentive to an individual to poach; and we are giving currency and substance to the further charges that the salmon fisheries in Scotland today are nothing but a well organised ramp.
Another point which is being made is that we must increase the penalties on the traditional poacher because in many cases the individual who uses the rod and line is part of a gang; that is, the commercial spivs are using not merely the devices referred to in other parts of the Bill but attachments to the ordinary rod and line which bring them into the category of gangsters. My point on that is that we could quite well cover our purpose by bringing these individuals into Clause 4 (c), which covers the use of electrical devices, by amending it to read:
…electrical or any other devices.
That would bring those people within the scope of a much greater penalty than the one which we propose to inflict under this Clause.
To substantiate my case, I submit that under the Bill big advantages are being given to the present owners of fishing rights. The Bill emphasises their ownership of the salmon, whereas the salmon actually belongs only to the person who catches the fish. I agree that we have to take precautions and some measure of control in the interests of the nation on that aspect. At the same time, in view of the advantages which are given to one section of the community, we should not impose steeper penalties on the single rod and line expert who for good and sufficient reasons may not have written permission but may have had verbal permission from the owner of the rights.

3.45 p.m.

Brigadier Thorp: I feel that the Title of the Bill itself. the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill, makes nonsense of the Amendment. The object of the Bill is to protect the salmon from illegal taking while it is in the river

or the mouth of the river, and it is no good saying that there are traditional poachers and that we should be kind to them. It makes nonsense of the Bill to put forward that sort of thing—

Mr. Rankin: I thank the hon. and gal-lant Gentleman for giving way to me. When I used the term "traditional poacher" I was simply borrowing a phrase which was much used during the Second Reading. I was not seeking to justify these people. Brigadier Thorp: That makes the Amendment even more stupid because I do not know whom the hon. Member Is trying to help. The Bill lays down, probably rightly, that the fine for taking fish without written permission should be £10, and for some reason the hon. Member thinks that that should be reduced to £5. He brought in a certain amount of clap-trap about improving the position of the owners of fishing and all that, but 1 cannot see that he has made any point in support of his Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I do not see how it follows that because the Title of the Bill is the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Protection (Scotland) Bill it makes nonsense of the Amendment. It would make nonsense if the Amendment ruled out altogether any penalty for poaching. What we seek to do in the Amendment is to ensure that the existing penalty of £5 shall not be increased. No reason was given on Second Reading or in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick - upon - Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) why the penalty should be increased. Hon. Members should realise that the Bill has not arisen because of the traditional type of poaching. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to smile, but he should look at the Report of the Maconochie Committee on Poaching and Illegal Fishing of Salmon and Trout in Scotland, upon which the Bill is based. It says that the Committee's terms of reference were:
…to enquire into the prevalence of the illegal taking or killing of salmon and trout"—
a very important part—
by methods which may cause serious damage to fish stocks.…
If he will read the Report he will find


that what was causing concern was commercial poaching by people taking not an odd fish but hundreds of fish and hundreds of pounds worth of fish, and. quite apart from that, spoiling all the fish that remained.

Brigadier Thorp: If the hon. Member feels so strongly about it why does he not seek to remove the penalty altogether?

Mr. Ross: Not at all. 1 do not see why we should remove the penalty altogether, and I see no reason why we should double the penalty from £5 to £10. Whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes it or not, during the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State for Scotland talked about the "respectable poacher." The right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) followed suit and called attention to the fact that people would be fined £2, £3 or £4 and not the maximum of £10. If that is the case, why increase the penalty to £10?
The Lord Advocate suggested that we were taking out of the Report of the Maconochie Committee the parts that suited us, but we are taking out of that Report the parts to which their terms of reference directly related. They were not asked to consider the effect on the ordinary type of poacher at all. Even there, however, when they did suggest penalties, they suggested a comprehensive class of penalties, with a maximum of £50. to deal with the small offenders as well as with the big ones, leaving it to the magistrates to decide. I do not see any reason why we should consider that the ordinary poacher is destroying in some new and desperate way the stocks of salmon, and it would be better to leave the penalty as it is. For that reason I support the Amendment.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I am sure all Members of the Committee know that a great deal of commercial poaching is going on through rod and line. People talk in friendly terms of the traditional poacher, and we all have a soft heart for the chap who has an occasional day's fishing. But no form of poaching should be looked upon with favour in this House. There are many people going out with rod and line to reconnoitre the

pools so that, when the gangsters come along, they know what stones not to trip over, where the fish lie, and how to get them. Both are there under the guise of rod and line fishermen and if somebody comes along, they say, "Sorry old chap, we have mistaken the water. We are out for an honest day's fishing" The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) shakes his head—

Mr. Rankin: Do I take it, from the line of argument that the hon. Gentleman is following, that he is against the distinctions laid down in the Bill? Does he propose to remove all the distinctions and submit all the poachers to the same penalties?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member wants to make a distinction between poachers, I would remind him that this is a maximum fine. So, if a harmless man is caught, he can get away with 10s., but if the authorities want to stamp upon somebody who is doing it in a more spiteful and bitter way, they can fine him £10.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Williams: There are so many of these people that they probably get a considerable amount of fish. They go out in parties, they have their scouts out, and in many cases when somebody has come along, they have used violence and gone so far as to throw him in the water. Surely a fine of £10 is not too much for people like that?
Another thing is that they take in their pockets small, often home-made, explosives, so small that they can hardly be seen. They put these in the river and kill a great many of the small fish—the large fish of the future. They also injure the fish going up to breed, and that do this under the guise of being rod and line fishermen. It is an old trick, when the water is clear and the fish can be seen lying there, to throw in a little weight with three hooks arranged round it to snatch the fish. That can be done easily under the guise of rod and line fishing. With the price of fish going up, the temptation to fish commercially with rod and line is increased. Surely, therefore, it is only right that the fine should go up? Finally, I ask hon. Members to remember that it is only a maximum.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I recall to the attention of hon. Members the pattern of this Bill, because this Amendment seems to me to have been taken in isolation without having regard to the other provisions of the Bill.
We seek in this Bill to classify offences according to their nature, with a rising scale of penalties in accordance with the nature of the offence. This Clause deals with fishing for salmon without permission. The next Clause deals with fishing for salmon or freshwater fish by illegal methods. We then deal with the case of two or more persons, the gang, who commit an offence against the first or second Clauses of the Bill. And then we deal with the methods of fishing which are obnoxious to all of us, the use of explosives and noxious substances, with a rising scale of penalties in that order.
We are dealing here with the person who fishes without legal permission. It would be wrong to assume that we are dealing only with the individual who goes down to the river to take one for his own pot, because experience has shown us that, at least in certain quarters, there is the threat of the person going down and catching the salmon and perhaps selling it to the local hotel keeper. We have to try to envisage all the types of cases that will fall within the ambit of the Clause, and in these circumstances it seems to me that increasing the maximum penalty—and I reiterate the point that it is a maximum penalty—is perfectly justified, particularly having regard to some other factors.
The figure at present is £5 but, as I pointed out on Second Reading, that figure was fixed as far back as 1844. If we are re-enacting the law now in 1951, it seems to me that a maximum fine of £10 in 1951 is not disproportionate to a maximum fine of £5 in 1844. If we look at it from the point of view of the effect on what has been referred to as the legitimate poacher, and if we think of what the maximum fine of £5 would be in 1844 in relation to his wages then as compared to the maximum fine now of £10 in comparison with his wages at the present day, then again there is much less disparity between his wages and the maximum fine now than there was in 1844.
Now pressure is being brought to bear on us from both sides of the Committee because some of the subsequent Amendments suggest that we should make the penalties under this Clause more stringent. Here we confine the right of forfeiture to the fish found in the possession of the poacher. Moreover, as I pointed out on Second Reading, we do not, as is sometimes customary, make more severe penalties available for a second and subsequent offence. In this Clause we have tried to strike a balance between the two, having regard to the fact that here we shall he dealing with the individual who fishes without legal authority and that he may be a person who is either fishing for his own pot or for the pot of somebody else. Having regard to these factors we felt that it was a justification for increasing the maximum fine to £10.
I trust that any sympathy which may be felt for the person who has been described as the traditional or legitimate poacher will not obscure the view of the Committee to our sense of responsibility in finding an appropriate sentence to deal with this offence. On that note I ask my hon. Friends to reconsider the position, and I ask the Committee to accept the Clause as it stands.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Carmichael: It would be very wrong for us on this side to allow that speech by the Lord Advocate to go unchallenged. He said that we must not overlook the intention behind the Bill because of some sympathy which there may be with the ordinary poacher. From what he has said, the Lord Advocate seems to have three different types of person in mind: first, someone from his family going down to the river to get a salmon; next, the poacher, who may feel that he can make a deal with the local hotel; and then, the organised gang.
On examining the report of the Maconochie Committee and the Bill, we are bound to recognise that the Bill was introduced primarily because of the organised gangs. But for this reason there would have been no suggestion of a Bill to protect salmon. We are entitled, therefore, to ask whether anything has happened with salmon fishing to show that the person who is described as the "ordinary" poacher has increased in number. Is there now a spate of these


people, and have the courts been overrun by them in the last few years? If there is evidence of any extension of this kind of poaching or of supplies for local hotels, then we are entitled to hear it, but I know of no evidence to justify the introduction of the Clause to deal with those two classes other than the organised gangs.
It may be argued that, technically, the Clause will apply to organised gangs, but in actual fact they will be dealt with under Clause 4. There is no justification, therefore, for the Clause. There is not a single Amendment to reduce the amount of the fines against the so-called organised gangs. If the Lord Advocate is arguing on a wage basis, there would be room for a whole lot of new Bills to make things hard for the ordinary people.
What the ordinary poacher is doing is, at worst, to commit an offence by trying to steal salmon from the rivers. That is not a very serious offence nowadays when we are thinking in terms of changing the whole social order under a Labour Government. It will be clearly realised by hon. Members on this side that at the same time as the poacher is committing that offence, we are strengthening the power of the people who own the land and the rivers. I never thought that a Labour Government, in the present serious situation of the world, would spend a day attempting to strengthen the power of the landlord against the wee innocent poacher from the village. That is what is happening.
As far as the £10 fine is concerned, what we should be doing is to argue that it should be higher for the gangsters and easier for the small poacher. We have been reasonable enough to say that because the Bill has been introduced and we are prepared to help in attacking the gangster groups, the limit should be £5 for the ordinary man. Since it has been argued on earlier occasions that the sheriff very rarely imposes a fine of more than £1 or £2, why should there be all this trouble over £10?
I have been advised that a sheriff who was recently trying a case in the South said that had the new Bill been in operation as intended, he would have imposed the maximum penalty. I am a little afraid of some of the sheriffs in Scotland, because not only are most of them good

anglers, but some of them own a good deal of the rivers.

The Lord Advocate: Nonsense. What evidence has my hon. Friend of that? He has made a statement which reflects upon the judiciary on Scottish benches, and to which I take great exception. If my hon. Friend is making that accusation I hope he will either adduce evidence to support it or withdraw it.

Mr. Carmichael: What accusation have I made? My right hon. and learned Friend assumes that I am going to make one.

The Lord Advocate: No.

Mr. Carmichael: Then what is the accusation I have made? Is it an accusation to say that a sheriff owns a river?

The Lord Advocate: In its context, it was.

Mr. Carmichael: I have made no accusations against any sheriffs. I made my remarks in that way so that I should not ruffle the tempers of the landlords on the benches opposite. [Interruption.] Most of the people on this side are associated with the mean poacher. I have said nothing against anybody who sits in the courts. All I have done is to say I had been advised that a sheriff had said that he would apply the maximum penalty, whereas it is very rare for them to impose even as much as £5.
We think that the maximum fine should remain at £5. We desire neither to reduce nor increase that figure, which we think is a reasonable proposition. The important point is that the Bill was introduced to deal with organised gangs. That being so, £5 is a reasonable maximum against the ordinary poacher who, if he does not have written consent, can be dealt with in this way. If he belongs to an organised gang, then written consent does not matter and he will be dealt with under Clause 4.

Mr. James Stuart: I rise for only a short period to pour oil, and not poison, on these troubled waters. I should like the Bill to be agreed to in its present form as far as the point under discussion is concerned. As the Lord Advocate has said, the raising of the fine to £10 is its first change since 1844. It


is a very reasonable proposition. I hope that the Committee will agree to it and that we need not continue to argue about this. The great majority of us want the Bill and to get on with it. The provisions of the Clause are perfectly reasonable after over 100 years without any alteration in the law.
It might be as well if some of the hon. Members who have spoken realised that the Bill is not intended to protect landlords, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) seemed to suggest that it was, and is not intended to protect the poacher, which is the impression which people might get from listening to some of the debate on Second Reading and again today. Nor is it intended to protect the sheriffs. It is devised purely and simply to protect the stocks of salmon and to see that this source of wealth and value to our country of Scotland is not damaged or ruined for the future.
There are a great many Amendments on the Order Paper. I hope we shall be able to progress and that the Committee will agree that the suggestion contained in the Clause is not unreasonable. It is in fact less than was suggested in the Maconochie Report—

Mr. Carmichael: No.

Mr. Stuart: This applies to the single poacher. It would be a pity if we were to continue referring to him as a "legitimate" poacher. It would be very difficult to say that there could be, for instance, a legitimate murderer or housebreaker. If we are to adhere to the rule of law we must try to carry out the law, and I think that the proposition put forward by the Government is reasonable.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: I hope the Committee will come to a decision now. We have had a reasonable debate and there are many Amendments on the Order Paper.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I do not intend going beyond the Amendment and I do not wish to pit my brains and experience in the legal sphere against those of my right hon. Friends. But to say that because there has been no change in the penalty since 1844, while money values have fallen, it is reasonable now to double it is a dangerous argument.

We would justify many cases well outside the poaching law for revision upwards on that basis. Who knows what the maximum fines might be imposed over a very wide field using that argument?

Mr. Stuart: One cannot do much more than hang a man.

Mr. MacMillan: Hon. Members opposite should remember that landlords did exactly that in the past. At one time it was so dangerous for a man to exercise his natural right to take a salmon that he could be hanged for it. In 1884, when the Crofters Commission was set up against the wishes of the Government, it was in order to protect the crofters against landlords. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the wrong year."] I am quite sure the hon. Member opposite would have been much more at home politically 100 years ago than he is today.
I understood the Secretary of State to give an assurance that if this Amendment were pressed, he would not oppose the reduction to £5. If that assurance were given, or strongly implied, it is a serious thing to go back on it when it is obvious that many hon. Members do feel that the penalty should be kept at £5 as a maximum and not increased to £10. I should be sorry indeed if the Secretary of State were to go back on that as I think the assurance was given.

The Lord Advocate: Will my hon. Friend quote the passage?

Mr. MacMillan: I cannot quote the passage but I am offering an opportunity to my right hon. Friend, who is much better equipped than I am, to contradict me if I am wrong. Most of us wanted this Bill specifically because it was an attack on the commercial gangs and not upon the individual salmon poacher who goes out and takes a salmon for his own use. To bring in the hotel people is only to point out a weakness in the Bill. The person who tempts the poacher and buys from him will get off scot-free. The hotel keeper will not be punished at all; the poacher alone will be punished. Do not let us use the hotel people against the traditional poacher, or the legitimate poacher, or whatever we like to call him. Let us remember that many local poachers themselves want to suppress the spiv gangs which are operating against their interests.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is going too wide in this debate. These questions have no near relationship to the simple question of the reduction of the fine. Hotel keepers do not come within that question.

Mr. MacMillan: I am sorry, Major Milner, but, far from pressing the matter too far, I would point out that all these things are in notes I have taken as other hon. Members were speaking. The hotel keeper was mentioned as a reason why the fine should be increased. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the increase in the fine in relation to the cost of living having gone up and other things, and I do not think I have gone very widely beyond what should be said. The Bill was designed and supported by us on this side of the Committee as an attack on commercial gangs and not on the small local man taking a salmon for his own table, and I hope the Committee will support the Amendment so that the fine will be kept down to £5. Sheriffs usually impose a fine of £2, possibly £3, or £4, but seldom £5.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I am deeply disappointed that this Amendment did not receive the support from my right hon Friends which, rightly or wrongly, like my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), I imagined they would give to it. However, we have made our protest—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, it is still open.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: The next Amendment, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "pounds," to end of Clause, is in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). Perhaps the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) would address any remarks he wishes to make on the Amendment in his name, in page 1, line 14, at end insert:
and of any instrument or article in respect of which or by which the offence is committed
to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries, as the two Amendments appear to be the same in effect.

Mr. Stuart: The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) is of a limiting character, whereas the Amendment in my name rather extends the Clause. I do not

object to speaking on that Amendment, but it seems to me that they have an entirely different object.

The Chairman: I am assuming that they evidently have, the same object—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and tend to apply Clause 17 and not to provide a separate forfeiture in respect of a separate offence.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "pounds," to the end of the Clause.
If I may say so, you have correctly interpreted the intention of my Amendment, Major Milner. At first sight one would suppose that the person who took the fish would be permitted to remain in possession of it, but, if hon. Members turn to Clause 17 they will see that:
Any person who is convicted of an offence against this Act in respect of which no provision for any forfeiture is expressly made shall be liable to the forfeiture of any fish illegally taken by him or in his possession at the time of the offence, and of any instrument or article in respect of which or by which the offence is committed.
This Amendment is intended to leave the law as it is at present in that it is possible for the courts to order the forfeiture of the rod and tackle. That is under the Act of 1844, which says:
and it shall he lawful for any Person employed in the Execution of this Act to seize and detain all Fish so taken, and all Boats, Tackle, Nets and other Engines so used. …
That apparently is how the law stands at present. Unless an Amendment is made in some such form as that which I suggest it will not be possible for a water bailiff to seize the rod of a poacher under Clause 10 (1, d) if he finds a poacher on the water.
It seems extraordinary that in the face of the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee the Government should have seen fit so to reduce the penalty, because even though they are increasing the maximum fine from £5 to £10 it would seem that the penalty is being reduced if the rod and tackle are not to be subject to forfeiture. In page 9, paragraph 22 of their Report, the Maconochie Committee say:
We are therefore strongly of the opinion that the existing maximum penalties require to be greatly increased so as to hear a direct relation to the present day circumstances.
Surely it is especially important, now that the Government intend to try to keep a


careful record of catches, that they should make quite certain that the amount of poaching by rod and line is reduced to a minimum; otherwise they can have no kind of accurate record of the takings from any particular river.
In addition, there is the fact that anyone who is poaching for salmon is frequently apt to say that he is only fishing for brown trout. If the rod is not subject to seizure it will simply mean that the only person who can give the evidence against him will not have the rod on which to base, that evidence. As the Bill now stands the evidence of one man is not sufficient in this case. It will simply be a case of the evidence of one person against that of another as to whether the accused person was fishing for brown trout or salmon—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the terms of the Amendment. It is a simple question of whether the words giving power of forfeiture in this specific instance shall be included in the Bill or not. The question of brown trout or even of instruments does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. Macpherson: I was only putting forward an argument to show how necessary it was to enable the rod not only to be forfeited if necessary but also seized. Unless that can be done I conceive that it will be even more difficult than at present to secure convictions for poaching. That is one of the reasons why I suggest to the Lord Advocate that this Amendment should be accepted.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman at least owes it to the Committee to tell us why the Government have seen fit to remove a penalty which at present exists. It seems to be an important consideration because any sportsman—and poachers no doubt consider themselves sportsmen—probably attaches at least as much value to his own rod as to anything else, and the sacrifice of that would in many cases weigh more with him than would a considerable fine. The Committee has to make up its mind whether it wishes poaching to be minimised or not. If so it must provide a sufficient deterrent, and the mere deterrent of a £10 fine without the forfeiture of the rod and tackle also is inadequate.

Mr. Stuart: I think that I am now beginning to understand my hon. Friend's

Amendment. If I am correct I support it, because I agree with him entirely in saying that the forfeiture of the rod and gear would be one of the best deterrents.

Mr. Carmichael: May I raise the point that this part of the Bill deals exclusively with fish, although I know that another Clause is to be introduced?

Mr. Stuart: I have on the Order Paper an Amendment which deals with gear, and I am attempting to speak about that Amendment. I will try to make myself clear. As I said, I think that that deterrent is one of the best ways of stopping poaching, if that is our desire and intention. Prevention is the best form of cure, and I should have thought that if the fear of the poacher included the fear of the possible loss of his rod or gear it might act as an effective form of deterrent.
It would, of course, operate only in appropriate cases. As an hon. Member opposite said earlier, we all know that the fines are maximum. In cases before the sheriff fines vary from £1 to £2, £3 or £4, but in the case of the hardened poacher the fear that he might forfeit his gear would be a very effective way of attempting to stop the poaching with which we are dealing. I was interested in a letter which appeared in the "Scotsman" on 5th January, in which it is stated:
Under the Bill the 'decent' poacher"—
the word "decent" is not his own word, he is quoting from HANSARD—
will be better off on conviction than he is under the law as it stands. His rod and relative gear will no longer be liable to forfeiture.
I hope that the Lord Advocate will give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) and to my own Amendment because I hope that all of us have the same object in view. I think that if my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has expounded the matter accurately, as I am sure he has done, what he has suggested is what we ought to aim at. I hope that the Government will agree with us.

The Lord Advocate: May I preface my remarks by supporting the view that the result of the two Amendments would be exactly the same? There seems to be a certain dubiety about it in the minds of some of my hon. Friends. If the Amend-


ment moved by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) were carried the provisions of Clause 17, the general forfeiture Clause, would automatically be attracted, whereas by dealing specifically in this Clause with a method of forfeiture the provisions of Clause 17 are expressly excluded. Both Amendments seek to bring within the Clause the penalty of forfeiture not only in respect of fish but of all implements used in obtaining the fish which are dealt with under the Clause. Therefore, they deal with exactly the same point.
I should again like to remind the Committee that although we have departed from the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee, we have done so in the effort to build up a structure of offences under the Bill. When the Maconochie Committee made their recommendations they were dealing with general penalties which would include not only the particular type of offence envisaged in this Clause but those in some of the other Clauses which deal with what is regarded as a graver offence. And when we split up the nature of the offence we have, I submit, correspondingly to split up the nature of the penalties; and that is the genesis of the alteration which we seek to make in the existing law.
4.30 p.m.
May I point out again to the Committee that it is only the individual person who would be caught by this, and, as I see it, only the individual person using rod and line. Because if he is fishing without legal permission, and he is fishing by any means other than net and coble, he is committing an offence against Clause 2; and Clause 2 attracts the general forfeiture provision of Clause 17. If he is fishing without legal permission and using net and coble, as I understand this process at least two persons are required to be involved in the operation. In those circumstances the provisions of Clause 3 would be attracted and again the penalties under Clause 3 attract general forfeiture. So, by a process of elimination, we find that the only person with whom we are dealing so far as forfeiture is concerned is the person fishing by rod and line.

Sir David Robertson: I think the Lord Advocate is wrong in the submission he is making.

There are numerous single poachers in Scotland. They have been prosecuted on the North and South Esk, and the only means by which these men can be penalised under this Bill is under Clause 1. In addition, there are men who operate hung nets on the estuary of the Tay; men going out ostensibly to fish for white fish, whereas in fact they are fishing for salmon by putting an illegal net, a weighted net, across the flow. For that reason I would urge the Lord Advocate to give way on these two Amendments.

The Lord Advocate: In the first place I was just giving an historical review; I had not come to the rest of my argument. Secondly, as I understand the operation described by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the hung net, it would be a contravention of Clause 2 of the Bill. It is not net and coble and therefore it is an illegal method of fishing, and accordingly an offence under Clause 2. As I see it, we are dealing with a fisherman who is fishing without written permission by means of rod and line. In those circumstances we feel that to make the rod subject to forfeiture might result in a penalty disproportionate to the offence.
As I said in answer to the previous Amendment, we were getting pressure from both sides. Some people were saying we were being too lenient, and others that we were really imposing too high a penalty. We have tried to effect what we regard as a reasonable compromise. Having regard to the fact that the really serious lawbreakers are all embraced by other Clauses of the Bill, and on conviction under those Clauses forfeiture certainly is open to the court, in dealing with the single rod and line fisherman fishing without legal permission, it would be disproportionate to enable the court to forfeit the rod and line which, I am informed, might be a very expensive instrument. It would result in a penalty against the person far beyond that envisaged under the Clause.
Having regard to the fact that we have stepped up the maximum penalty, hon. Gentlemen opposite will see, in a spirit of sweet reasonableness, that this, against the background I have described, is probably a fair and proper burden for the type of offence we are trying to deal with in this Bill.

Brigadier Thorp: There is one point which I should like cleared up. It is the


point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) when speaking on his Amendment, about the production of the rod at a court. Will there be any method of producing the rod and line if it is not to he confiscated? I think that point is very relevant and important. There are many cases where the evidence is produced only by producing the rod and line.

The Lord Advocate: It seems to me to be a question of circumstances in each case. In my opinion it would not be necessary to produce the rod and line to prove that a man was fishing without legal permission. The evidence of witnesses who said they saw him there, allied to the evidence that there was no written permission given to the individual to fish, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. As the only issue under the Clause is fishing without written permission, the production of the rod and line would not be necessary to secure a conviction.

Mr. Ross: Considering that I opposed the raising of the penalty originally, it will not come as any surprise that I am opposing this Amendment. My point is that the definition of illegal fishing with rod and line, and the types of persons doing it who would be brought under this Clause, is far too wide for us to accept the general penalty brought forward, first by the Government and now by the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, Centre (Mr. Manuel), received a very interesting letter from the Ayrshire Angling Association which I think has a considerable bearing upon this point. The Secretary and Treasurer of the Association writes:
… I consider the £10 rather a vicious penalty to impose on a rod and line angler who may be fishing quite fairly. Obviously a man may be fishing with permission, in a pool"—
and this is the important point—
hook a salmon, and be taken downstream—or upstream—beyond his 'march' while playing the fish. It appears to me that under the proposed terms of the Bill he will then be liable to the £10 penalty.
The writer then objects very much to that. I think he will object very much more if this really respectable fisherman is to be subjected to the forfeiture of his rod and line.

Mr. G. Williams: Would it ever happen?

Mr. Ross: It is all very well for an hon. Gentleman from an English constituency to say it would never happen, but it does happen and I consider that the Secretary of the Ayrshire Angling Association is much more conversant with what does happen in Ayrshire.

Brigadier Thorp: Just a fishing story!

Mr. Ross: I suggest that the Lord Advocate is quite right in digging in his heels on these Amendments.

Captain Duncan: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to this as a "vicious penalty." It has been the law since 1844 and I do not see the point of his remark that it is a vicious penalty. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to look it up I would refer him to Section 31 of the 1868 Act.

Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that because a thing has been law for a certain time it would not be a vicious penalty?

Captain Duncan: The hon. Gentleman was trying to make out that the Amendment of my hon. Friend was increasing the penalty and therefore it was a vicious penalty. There is no suggestion of that at all. The point of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend is the re-imposition of the law as it has stood since 1844 in connection with the forfeiture of gear.
The Lord Advocate talked about this, referring only to the single fisherman, fishing without permission with rod and line. I should like to ask him how much he knows about poaching?

Mr. Manuel: How much does the hon. and gallant Member know`?

Captain Duncan: There are extremely efficient fishermen fishing singly, with a single rod and line illegally, and catching enormous numbers of fish.

The Lord Advocate: They are fishing illegally by methods not provided for in Clause 2, and therefore in contravention of Clause 2, and accordingly their instruments are liable to forfeiture.

Captain Duncan: That is the point I am trying to get at. If that is so let me give one instance. Some of these fellows are extremely adept at this game.


Suppose a man has three hooks and bits of lead attached to the appropriate points on the line—

Mr. Manuel: Not only the poachers.

Captain Duncan: The hon. Gentleman knows how to do it. Everyone does. Perhaps we might have some expert evidence from him later. Suppose a man has three hooks and bits of lead at the appropriate places on his line and he is at a nice pool where he can see the fish. He can cast over the fish and foul-hook them. Some of these people can do that with 100 per cent. efficiency. Is that illegal fishing within the terms of Clause 2 or not? It appears to me that in a court of law, without the production not so much of the rod but of the bait and line, it would be impossible to prove that the man was fishing illegally. Unless we can have a clear explanation on that point, this Amendment ought to be pressed to a Division so that we can ensure that the present law is continued.

The Lord Advocate: Manifestly, if a man was suspected of foul-hooking a fish, or of using any other illegal method which would be a contravention of Clause 2 under which forfeiture of the rod and line is competent, the water bailiffs would have power under Clause 10 to seize the rod and line, and eventually it would be produced in court. I cannot see the difficulty which the hon. and gallant Gentleman envisages.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It is all the more important, in view of what the Lord Advocate has said, that the instrument should be readily available for production in the sheriff court. If the water bailiff is able to get hold of the instrument, whether it is a rod or line or whatever it may be, then that is all right: but it would be possible for the poacher to throw it away—

The Chairman: I do not think that question arises. The Committee are talking about the forfeiture of instruments and not about whether or not they should be produced in court. That is a different matter which does not arise under this Clause.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I agree. I was trying to reinforce the arguments

adduced by my hon. Friends that unless there is power of forfeiture there is not the power to produce the articles in court. I will not stress that point. Other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), have spoken as if under Clause 17 the rod and line would certainly be forfeited. As I understand the Clause, that is not so. If a poacher who had been fishing in a legitimate way with rod and line were summoned in the sheriff court, the sheriff need not forfeit the rod and line. The rod and line would be liable to forfeiture just as would be the gaff, the net or any other implement used.

Mr. Ross: I was drawing attention to the Amendment dealing with Clause 1 and not Clause 17.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The object of moving the Amendment to Clause 1 is to bring these offences under Clause 17 into line. That is perfectly well understood by every other hon. Member, so I will not stress the point further.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: I hope that the Committee will resist this Amendment. On Second Reading we were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that he expected a great number of godfathers to this Bill. When one examines the Order Paper today, one would imagine that they have turned into stepfathers; and the Opposition may yet throw in two or three stepmothers and then the position will be worse than being caught with the "witch."
I wish to call attention to the position of the city angler in places like Edinburgh and Midlothian. If a city angler finds that he has a day off and the weather is good, he may decide early in the morning to go fishing in the Tweed; but the shops which sell the permits for fishing do not open until 9 a.m. or 10 a.m., and the result is that often a fisherman goes to the river without a permit. Though a permit may cost only 5s. when bought before the man goes to the river, if a man is caught by a bailiff without a permit he will be charged 10s. The fee is doubled. Under this Bill he will be classed as a poacher. I do not understand the jargon about the honest or legitimate poacher, nor does the sheriff sitting in court. The sheriff must do his duty. He cannot push the law one way or the other.
We have had mentioned a prosecution which took place recently in a sheriff court. I do not hold any brief for the poacher. His name was Robert McCallum and he was described in court as a persistent offender. This man was not caught in the act. He was chased by two water bailiffs who alleged that they identified him as a man who had been fishing illegally and who had dropped two foul-hooked salmon and a fishing rod. The man challenged the bailiffs to produce his fingerprints on the rod, but they did not take the opportunity. It was said in court that the man had a bad record. The sheriff, who was only doing his duty, said, "If the new Bill had been on the Statute Book, I could have dealt with you in another fashion."
I want my right hon. and learned Friend to make sure that there will be no question in future of our people being in the position of the city angler who inadvertently goes to the river without a permit and is placed in the position of being a poacher. I have had drawn to my attention instances of gear being forfeited on the River Tweed and taken to St. Boswell's. No charge has been levied against the man concerned. He has been told at a later stage that if he cares to go to St. Boswell's, which might entail losing a day's work, he will get his gear. The time has arrived when the position covering all fishing in Scotland should be reviewed.

Mr. Manuel: I wish to declare an interest. I think all hon. Gentlemen ought to declare whatever interest they may have in this subject. As an honorary president of the Ayrshire Angling Association I take great interest in anything appertaining to angling welfare. It appeared to me that the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) had rather an intimate knowledge of illegal and foul-fishing methods. One cannot charge the poacher with being the only person who fishes illegally. In fact, it has been known that, when fish has been needed for the table, even gamekeepers have been instructed to extract it from the water by unusual methods. Possibly that should be kept in mind and greater regard paid to the correct taking of fish by those who ought to be indicating the correct procedure in this matter.
I want to oppose the intention of these two Amendments, because, as I see it, it would be vicious to the extent that gear today would be costing more than the amount of the fine that would be applicable to this type of offence under Clause 1. Apart from the line or anything else, one cannot buy a good rod today under £12 or so. I am speaking of the kind of rod that any keen angler would use. In the type of case instanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), I feel that foul-hooking or snatch-hooking and things of that kind are surely governed by Clause 17, under which there is provision for forfeiture where there is illegal fishing in the sort of case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned. Therefore, I feel that, in this particular instance, we ought not to be governed by forfeiture, because the value of the gear forfeited might be more than the amount of the fine imposed for the offence.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I must say that we on this side of the Committee are not satisfied with the explanation given by the Lord Advocate. There seems to be no reasonable argument produced by him for changing the law, which is what he is doing here. This is a direct change of the law, and all that he is doing has the effect of saying that, no matter how often a man might be accused of poaching or be convicted, every time his rod would be handed back to him. In effect, the court would be saying to him "Here you are; go and do it again."

The Lord Advocate: I should be very surprised if any court were ever to say to a person accused of poaching "Here is your rod; go and do it again."

Mr. Macpherson: That is the inference to be drawn, and that is what may be read between the lines. That is what will be the effect, and it is really quite beside the point to argue what would be the effect of other Clauses in regard to illegal practices, unless it is possible for the water bailiff or other authorised person to seize the rod in the first place. It will be very difficult for the courts to identify the offender, if they will ever be able to do it, and that being so, it will simply mean an inevitable increase in poaching, which this Bill is intended to reduce. For that reason, I feel certain that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will wish to oppose this provision.

Mr. Rankin: I want to put only one point to the hon. and gallant Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart), who, when the last Amendment was being considered, suggested to the Committee that we should try to get this Bill through with a large measure of agreement and without too much quarrelling over it. I think that to some extent that appeal influenced the attitude of my colleagues on this side of the Committee with regard to the Amendment standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, because we did not press that Amendment to a Division. As a result, we took it that it had been accepted in the Committee that the maximum penalty should be £10. Now we find that the Opposition, practically by a trick, are seeking to change the maximum of £10 to a maximum of nearly £22 as the penalty on the single rod and line fisherman. That is the effect of this particular Amendment, and it just shows once again that we simply cannot trust the Opposition.

Mr. Stuart: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, may I say that we are not seeking to increase the existing penalty at all, but to leave it as it stands.

Mr. Rankin: On the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I have somewhat minimised the penalty, but it actually works out at £27 or £28. That is what the Opposition want; that is their purpose. I hope that, if they are going to press this proposal to a Division, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will dig in his heels and resist it.

Mr. Spence: The hon. Member who spoke last sought to create the impression that in some way or other we had introduced an Amendment to provide for forfeiture of rod and line by a trick, but if the hon. Gentleman will read the Order Paper he will see perfectly plainly that, in regard to whether the penalty should be £5 or £10, there could have been no doubt in anyone's mind as to the intention of those on this side of the Committee who support the Amendment for the forfeiture of the rod as well. I suggest that there was no attempt to mislead the other side of the Committee about it.
I believe that, if we do not get into the Bill the Clause calling for the forfeiture of the rod and gear, we shall produce an increase in poaching instead of a decrease in it. It is precisely the same thing as handing back the jemmy to a burglar. For that reason, I hope the Committee will divide and that this Amendment will be made to the Bill.

Brigadier Thorp: I do not think the Lord Advocate met my point when he mentioned the production of the rod and line as evidence in cases of fishing without written leave. The real point concerns fishing for salmon without written leave. It is possible to fish for trout without written leave, but one can use methods which will catch a salmon; in fact, these methods do result in catching salmon, and, unless the gear used in such methods is produced as evidence in court, the man gets away with it, because he says that he is quite legally fishing for trout. For that reason, there should be provision for the rod and line to be produced as evidence.

The Lord Advocate: I do not think that difficulty really does exist, because, after all, if the court can only convict for the actual commission of an offence, I think it could do so without the evidence of the actual rod and line. It would be a question for the court.
I am going to make this appeal to the Opposition, and I beg the leave of the Committee for a couple of minutes in which to do it. When dealing, with the previous Amendment, I pointed out that we were under pressure from both sides of the Committee, on the one side to cut the penalty down, and, on the other side, to get rid of forfeiture, and we thought we had effected a half-way-house solution, having regard to the pattern of the Bill and the provisions of this Clause for that type of offence.
It is confined to the individual, who is acting as an individual, in fishing by legal methods, but without written permission. It would be a very bad send-off for this Bill, which has met with general acceptance, if on a matter of this nature, which involves the structure of the penal Clause, we should have a Division on this particular Amendment. Accordingly, I urge the Opposition to approach this matter from the point of view of a compromise between extreme views on both sides, and


one which fits well into the pattern that we propose in the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I may be very stupid, but I have not got this quite clear. Clause 1 says:
If any person without legal right…
and then further down:
forfeiture of any fish illegally taken…
That does not mean that it was taken without permission; the Clause says "illegally" which means, presumably, by illegal methods. If this Clause could be confined to illegal fishing with rod and line. I should be prepared to let it go at that, particularly in view of the appeal made by the Lord Advocate, but my difficulty is that I feel that as things are at the moment we are not going to attack the illegal fisher strongly enough, and perhaps the Lord Advocate will look at that again.

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Stuart: Does that mean, Major Milner, that you are not calling my Amendment in line 14, at the end, insert:
and of any instrument or article in respect of which or by which the offence is committed.

The Chairman: Yes, I am afraid does.

Mr. Stuart: I had hoped it might be put separately. While I was perfectly agreeable to discussing the two together,

I was under the impression that my Amendment would be put.

The Chairman: There is a misunderstanding. As the intention of both Amendments is in essence the same, and as the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause" was agreed to, it is not possible for me to submit the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the Committee.

Mr. Stuart: With all respect, Major Milner—and, of course, I cannot contradict your Ruling—surely it does not fail to make sense to add the words which I wish to insert after the wording as it now stands in the Clause?

The Chairman: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but as the words which it was sought to leave out have been left in the Clause, I do not think it is permissible to adopt his suggestion.

Mr. Stuart: rose—

The Chairman: On consideration, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes at the end of the Clause to add the words in his Amendment, I am prepared to put the Question.

Mr. Stuart: Then I beg to move in page 1, line 14, at the end to insert:
and of any instrument or article in respect of which or by which the offence is committed.

Question put. "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 198.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(APPREHENSION OF OFFENDERS.)

Lord Dunglass: I beg to move, in page 5. line 32, to leave out subsection (2).

The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the later one in the name of the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart), in page 5, line 41, to leave out subsection (3), were taken together.

Lord Dunglass: I quite agree, Sir Charles, that it would be convenient to discuss these two Amendments together.
As I understand it, this is a limiting Clause in that under the present law it is the right and duty of an owner, or, indeed, of any person, who sees the law being broken, to apprehend the offender. Clause 12 restricts the right to apprehend to constables and water bailiffs and to persons appointed by the Secretary of State.
There are two arguments used in favour of this Amendment, the one of expedience and the other of principle. Clearly, when there is a shortage of water bailiffs and of police, and such people find it very difficult to carry out their duties, it would be inadvisable, I should have thought, to limit the classes of persons who can apprehend offenders. But on the matter of principle, and one of really more importance, I always understood—and I am sorry the Lord Advocate has gone—that it was an essential principle of the common law that it was not only the right but the duty of a citizen to uphold the law. For instance, if the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and myself were walking clown the street and I started to break the windows of the house of the Secretary of State, it would be the duty of the hon. Member for Shettleston to apprehend me.
That is, I think, a principle running right through the common law of the land, and it was a principle which was sustained, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, by the Act of 1868 which this Clause is amending. The object of this Amendment is simply to continue the status quo that exists under the Act of 1868, where an owner, or, indeed, any person, has the right, and the duty, I would add, to uphold the law. We think that this Clause seriously weakens that position and we are strongly opposed to it as it stands, and strongly in favour of this Amendment. I hope the Secretary of State will give us some satisfaction on this because it is something


to which we attach considerable importance.

Mr. McNeil: Unhappily my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is not here at the moment. I must say that the noble Lord has offered a most unusual and novel interpretation of my duties as a citizen, and I will certainly confer with my right hon. and learned Friend on this strange aberation. Whatever the law may be, I would most respectfully suggest that, in the unlikely event of the noble Lord finding my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) breaking my windows—

Lord Dunglass: I put it the other way round.

Mr. McNeil: Even so, far from it being my hon. Friend's duty to arrest the noble Lord I do not think he has powers to do so, and it would certainly be more discreet to call a policeman.

Lord Dunglass: If he could find one.

Mr. McNeil: Even if he could not find one at that moment I would be inclined to think, subject to what my right hon. and learned Friend says, that he would be discharging his duty if he went to the nearest police station and said "That bad chap the noble Lord has been smashing windows again."

Commander Galbraith: Suppose my noble Friend was about to cut the Secretary of State's throat. Would the right hon. Gentleman then suggest that his hon. Friend should do no more than go to the nearest police station?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think the situation is as critical as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. In that event, however, I hope that out of affection as well as a sense of duty my hon. Friend would come to my assistance and seek to restrain the noble Lord in this unusual and passionate exercise. I would say it was also the duty of my hon. Friend as a citizen to make sure that the unusual and passionate activities of the noble Lord were brought to the attention of the police, and his further duty to offer evidence. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend on this, but I think it is an unusual suggestion that each of us has the obligation as a citizen to behave as a policeman,

even to the point of apprehending people whom we arbitrarily think are committing an offence, although it is clearly our duty to uphold the law.

Sir Ian Fraser: Having reason to believe they are committing an offence.

Mr. McNeil: That might be an argument to put forward in a court if I subsequently sued the noble Lord in a civil action. However, this interesting discussion and these imaginative exercises are a little outside the point.
I quite understand the worries of the noble Lord and his hon. Friends in putting down these two Amendments. As he said, under the Act of 1868 people were empowered to seize and detain a person found committing an offence. I hope the noble Lord will agree that we have changed our thinking since those days. I anticipate that not all sections of the public would approve of my, continuing to have this unusual and arbitrary endowment of power.

Lord Dunglass: That provision in the Act of 1868 has remained the law to this day. It may be unusual, but today we do not seem to have any legal advice available in the Committee. I still believe that this Clause weakens the general law, in that under the common law it is the duty of a citizen to attempt to apprehend another citizen who is breaking the law.

Mr. McNeil: I will certainly find an opportunity to comment upon that point on the Report stage. If the noble Lord is found to be right beyond all dispute in the literal interpretation of that, I will consider his proposition. I have something to say which, I am sure, has not occurred to him and which may encourage him not to press his Amendment. It is true that we confine the power to the police constable and to the water bailiff and to such officers of the district board as may be authorised by the Secretary of State. It seems to me quite plain that if they had reason to believe or reason to suspect that poachers were unusually active, and representations were made to me by the board that their resources were insufficient to maintain normal policing in the area, I certainly would not hesitate to endow with the power under the Clause other officials of that district board. I hope that the noble


Lord and his hon. Friends will think that that is reasonable.
I am against specifically endowing everyone with the statutory right to apprehend anyone whom they have reasonable cause to think is behaving improperly. Indeed, I think, though this is only a debating point, that if the common law is as the noble Lord thinks it is, there would be no need for me to gild the lily by writing it into this Act. I do not think that it is. I can understand the reasons which made it necessary in the Act of 1868, and I do not think that the same reasons obtain today; but should it be shown that there were insufficient forces in any area, then I can scarcely imagine that any Secretary of State would hesitate to vest the officers of the district board with necessary powers, and certainly I would.

Mr. Stuart: I was not here earlier in this discussion and I apologise for intervening, but I should like the Secretary of State to think of this point, because, as I understand this matter, under the present law any person can seize and detain a salmon poacher. The reasons for this are perfectly plain. There are many rivers where there are no bailiffs at all, as we know, and vast stretches of rivers which the bailiffs cannot entirely cover. Any legitimate angler or owner or gamekeeper, or whoever it may be, can at the present time act, and if they cannot act it appears that, if this becomes law. all that will be possible is for the person who witnesses an act of poaching—as, for example, people who are employed by the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association—to say to the poacher, "Wait there until I fetch a policeman," and the police constable may be 15 miles away. That would not be at all a satisfactory way to apprehend a person who is deliberately poaching. Therefore, I think that my noble Friend is right in what he said, and I hope that the Government will consider this matter further.

9.30 p.m.

Sir I. Fraser: The noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) deplored the absence of a lawyer. I am only an amateur lawyer, but I have had occasion, quite fortuitously, to deal with a question analogous to that we are now discussing, and I would submit this point to the Secretary of State. There may be.

perhaps, a good reason why this power was included in the old Act. Contrary to the opinion expressed by some of my hon. Friends, I believe that the common law does not go so far as to make it the duty of a citizen to apprehend any person thought to be committing such an offence as we have in mind.
It is true that it is the duty of any citizen to apprehend a person he has good reason to think is committing a felony. If it were to be shown that the person was not committing a felony but merely brandishing a knife for fun, or merely sharpening his razor for amusement, the person who apprehends him would not be guilty of assault, because he would be carrying out his duty. While that may be the common law in relation to felony, it may not be the position in the case of misdemeanours we have in mind.
The difficulty my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) has just indicated was the reason why this was made a statutory right or duty. The fact is that when this particular misdemeanour occurs it is in a remote place, and the only way of apprehending anyone is to give power to the citizen to do it. In the light of that, I ask the Secretary of State to consider accepting the Amendment or taking legal advice on the matter.

Mr. Gage: I intervene only because the Secretary of State expressed surprise that a person is not entitled to arrest a fellow citizen. It has always been the law of this country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has just said, and I am sure it is the law of Scotland, although the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong, that a citizen has the duty to arrest another citizen whom he reasonably considers to have committed a felony. That is certainly correct so far as England is concerned, and no doubt it is correct so far as Scotland is concerned. I am unable to say whether the offence under the 1868 Act is a felony—it may be only a misdemeanour.

The Lord Advocate: As we are dealing with Scotland, let me say that a felony and a misdemeanour do not find any place in the law of Scotland.

Mr. Gage: That only reinforces what I said earlier that it is high time the law of Scotland was brought into line with


the law of this country. I recall that there is a duty in Scotland on a citizen to arrest in case of a serious offence. That does not necessarily imply that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that these two subsections should be deleted, because I, in common with other Members, have always felt very chary about extending the rights of arrest in minor offences. The common law of England, which says that it is the duty of the citizen to arrest in cases of felony, refers largely to murder, manslaughter and really serious cases of larceny where it should be perfectly clear that a crime is being committed. It is, therefore, very different to give the power of arrest in what might be called more minor offences. We have to be exceedingly cautious about extending the power of arrest.

Lord Dunglass: I am not suggesting extending the power. It has been the power up to now.

Mr. Gage: My knowledge of the Scottish law is at fault there. I am, however, a little surprised to find that there is in Scotland the powers to detain and seize someone who is committing an offence which I assume is of a poaching nature. That possibly might be going further than many of us would care to go. One has to be very cautious about extending the power of arrest. In the case of the water bailiff, constable, or officer appointed by the Secretary of State there arises the question of the deputy water bailiff. I recognise that there is much in my hon. Friend's argument that there may be occasions when water bailiffs and officers are not sufficient and one has to be appointed temporarily to carry on that duty. Therefore, I think it would be right to extend the power of arrest to such persons.
I find a good deal of difficulty in cases of this nature in saying that the power of arrest should just simply be given to anyone who happens to be a citizen. It is quite true that for serious offences in England there is the general duty of the citizen to arrest. In these circumstances, I hope that the Secretary of State will look at this again, because I think there is great force in the argument that the water bailiff, constable or officer appointed by the Secretary of State is not sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman ought to consider the question of other people who ought

to be allowed to arrest, and I confess that I am not anxious to see that power extended simply to any citizen who might be there.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), that there is nothing in this Amendment which extends the law as it stands at present. The fact is that under a Clause in the Bill the present law is being changed. I was amazed at the speech of the Secretary of State. I always regarded him as an orderly and quiet person. Surely there is an old habit in this country—I think it goes north of the Border—that if, for instance, an old lady is robbed of her bag she will shout, "Stop thief." I always understood that it was the moral duty of anyone seeing the person running away to stop that thief. The right hon. Gentleman said that apparently one's duty would be to seek and inform a policeman. That would give a very considerable start to the person committing the offence.

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Member. In the case of the old lady who lost her purse or, to go back to the original proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), attempting to do me grave bodily injury, I do not suggest that anybody should stand aside. What I understood the noble Lord to argue was that the citizen had a duty—the hon. Member for Torquay says a moral obligation—to arrest the offender. I said that that was not my understanding of the position, and that he had neither the power nor the legal obligation to make an arrest. If he had a legal obligation and failed to discharge it he would be proceeded against. He has a moral right to track the thief, recover the money and detain him.
Everyone has a moral obligation, and, I think, an obligation as a citizen, to assist the police to uphold the law, to prevent the breaking of the law. But we were talking originally, inside this Clause, about arrest. That is the word in the Clause—"arrest"—and I say that I should be extremely surprised if I were to be told that that is a right resident in the citizen.

Mr. C. Williams: Yes, but I was trying to deal with that when I gave way to


the right hon. Gentleman. I am not a lawyer, and I will not take the word "arrest" in the meaning in which I was understanding it in dealing with this Amendment. I will say, rather, "apprehend" or "keep" the person until a form of "arrest" can be made. It has always been the duty, and I think everyone will agree that it is the duty of everyone to try to stop crime. That is the first point.
The second point is this. If, in the Bill, we were putting in something new, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), seemed to imagine, then there would be something in not allowing this power to be extended; but we are not extending this power: we are only, in our Amendment, wishing it to continue. The whole of the Bill is apparently an appeal from the Government to try to stop certain forms of attack on the salmon of Scotland. They ask us to do that, yet, in the remote areas, there must be many occasions when it cannot be possible for a water bailiff to be in the place where the attack is being made. Surely in this great appeal which the Government are putting forward in this Bill, which is unexpected, coming from those quarters, and for which their case is sound, as I believe it to be, they must be wrong in weakening the power for the preliminary stopping of this form of despoliation of the salmon fisheries.
I really cannot see any reason for their opposition to our case. We are not giving powers of arrest. We are leaving the powers which exist today of detaining the person until the police can catch him and give the appropriate evidence. As I said at the beginning, I think that the procedure which follows upon the cry "Stop, thief !" is a perfectly sound one. The man who tries to stop him or does stop him does not arrest him in a formal way. He simply holds him until the police come. That is all of the power that exists under the old Act, which is now being taken away, thus weakening the whole of the Government's case in the Bill.
The Secretary of State thinks the Scots are logical people, but when he and the Scots lawyers come here and make this suggestion it appears to me, and, I think, to anyone of Celtic or Saxon blood, that they are losing the whole of their sense of logic—unless they accept this Amendment, which, after all, is not to extend the powers.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I wonder if the Secretary of State is not regarding this matter as an exercise in theory on this occasion rather than as a very practical question. Let us consider what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the possibility—nay, almost the certainty—that we shall have a group of two or three men going to a pool in a river miles away from any police office. My home in Scotland is at the top of a glen, 16 miles from the nearest policeman. Some evening, shall we say, a gamekeeper or owner, or a member of his staff, comes along and sees a man casting explosives into a pool, or casting poison into it, or using an electrical appliance—

Mr. McGovern: Or an atom bomb.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: —to kill 20, 30 or 40 salmon. Does a man like the Secretary of State, a Scotsman, and a keen fisherman—really suggest that this owner, gamekeeper or ploughman, seeing such an act being committed, shall say nothing except, "You ought not to do this, you naughty man. Stand where you are until I go to the telephone a mile away and call a policeman 16 miles away. Stand here until he comes"?
9.45 p.m.
I never thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be made to look so silly as that suggestion makes him look. What is the sense of this? At present the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has not the number of bailiffs, policemen or officers to police, or anything like it, the Scottish rivers. Yet he will not move in this matter and will not appoint a single deputy officer unless the crimes have been carried on for some time and the local board says, "We cannot cope with this continuity of crime. For goodness' sake give us additional policemen, bailiffs or officers."
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as a practical measure, that until he has that staff and until he has seen the new process functioning he ought as a sensible man, a keen fisherman and one who is prepared to defend the place of salmon in the Scottish economy, not to alter the present law. If, in a year or two's time, he can come to the House and say, "I have provided the servants which I need for this operation. I am satisfied that these men are adequate to stop salmon poaching," the House would not for a moment hesitate to accept his request.


But it is madness to do it now and it is foolishness on the part of one who holds the great office of a practical Secretary of State for Scotland to ask for such a stupid measure as this.

Lord Dunglass: The proposition that it is the duty of the citizen to apprehend an offender has started a considerable discussion with a wealth of illustration. What we are asking the Secretary of State to do is simply to leave the law as it is in the Act of 1868 under which an owner or any person has the right to apprehend. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows it, but what he is doing here is to put us in a much more restricted position than exists even in England. In the English Gaming Act and the Act of 1923 dealing with fishing, owners, occupiers, gamekeepers, servants and their assistants may apprehend and hand over to a police officer. We shall have to divide unless we get satisfaction. If the Lord Advocate will look into this with a view to leaving the law as it is and not restricting us to the small categories of people with a right to apprehend, we shall be grateful.

The Lord Advocate: I think there is a certain amount of misapprehension about the powers which exist under the Acts of 1868 and 1857. We are not dealing merely with either the common law right or the common law duty of a citizen to prevent the occurrence of a crime. I think that there would be a distinction between the right and duty of a citizen to prevent a crime which was a common law crime and that which was a statutory crime. In the obviously apparent case of the common law crime of theft, the citizen knows that an offence is being committed, but we get into more difficult territory when dealing with statutory offences about which the ordinary citizen may not have the same knowledge.
If we go back to Section 29 of the 1868 Act, which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to see restored, we shall find these words:
It shall be lawful for any person, without any Warrant or other Authority than this Act, brevi menu to seize and detain any Person who shall he found committing any Offence…
contained in certain sections in the Act. Moreover it says:
and to carry such Person before any Sheriff or Justice of the Peace or other Magistrate.…

So it is not just a question of seizing or detaining or preventing them from getting away. It is the further power of carrying them bodily before a sheriff or magistrate or, alternatively, handing them over to a police constable.
Look at the difficulty into which one might be getting oneself. Here is a person without any warrant, such as a water bailiff or a person appointed by the Secretary of State would have, without the ostensible authority of a police constable who is wearing a uniform, suddenly saying to another person, "Stop." The person stops. He seizes him and then proceeds bodily to carry him before a sheriff or magistrate. Nothing more calculated to create a breach of the peace is conceivable. Whereas the water bailiff or the person appointed by the Secretary of State can produce a warrant of his authority, the ordinary citizen not embraced by that definition is not able to show any such authority. Therefore what hon. Members opposite wish to see restored—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Maintained."]—is the right of any citizen not only to seize and to detain but to carry such person before any sheriff or justice of the peace.

Mr. C. Williams: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

The Lord Advocate: No, the time is getting short. We looked at this from the point of view of maintaining the peace. We came to the conclusion that there was no longer any justification for giving these wide powers to every citizen in the land because, in so far as there may be certain common law rights of which hon. Members are aware, manifestly the provisions of the 1868 Act were importing additional powers to the citizen, otherwise there would not be any need to import them into that Act. All we seek to do by this Clause and the other Clause is to say that, in so far as these common law powers have been extended by the 1868 Act, we wish to restrict them to water bailiffs, officers appointed by the Secretary of State and police constables. They are the people with the ostensible authority to carry out rather drastic measures, whereas the ordinary citizen would be at a great disadvantage and would probably create circumstances that might lead to a breach of the peace.

Mr. Williams: May I ask one question to save a lot of time?

The Lord Advocate: Let me finish this point and then I will give way. With regard to the English position, under the 1923 Act the power to apprehend without a warrant is confined to water bailiffs and their assistants and not given to the large category of people whom the noble Lord considered, and certainly not to the citizens at large. The noble Lord referred to the Gaming Act, but I am referring to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1923, which is the Act dealing with the subject with which we are dealing in this Bill. There the right to arrest without a warrant under Section 71 is confined to water bailiffs and to their assistants.

Mr. Williams: Has the Lord Advocate had any case at all where the existing law has been abused which would give some justification for the change? Apparently he only made the supposition of what might happen.

The Lord Advocate: This is a question of looking at the extended powers under this Bill which are covering a larger territory than the 1868 Act. There have not been a great number of prosecutions under that Act and the circumstances envisaged here have not often arisen; but in the wider context of this Bill they are more liable to arise oftener. What I am really concerned about is that it is very dangerous to give the right, not only of seizure and detention, but of apprehension, to the ordinary citizen who has no ostensible warrant of authority. In so far as the section extends the common law right and the duty of the citizen, we think it should be restricted to the classes contained in the Clause.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Am I right in assuming that if this Clause becomes law, an owner who sees two men operating as I suggested a few minutes ago, and who holds those two men until a policeman is brought, commits an illegal act?

Mr. McNeil: He does not commit an illegal act. The hon. Member, who chastises me for being so stupid, must reflect upon his own experience. No one in that situation commits an illegality, although it is quite true that he does it at his peril. I am not a lawyer, but I recollect reading a case recently where a man, wanting to help the police, made a

rugby tackle upon a man coming out of a picture house, but he discovered that he had tackled a plain-clothes policeman. As the Committee will remember, that man was proceeded against. If a proprietor tackles the wrong man, he may be proceeded against, but he commits no illegality.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will look at this matter again. I am anxious to meet them if there is a reasonable case. There is power under Clause 10 (5) for the Secretary of State to vest power in any person or officer if he thinks that a case is proved. Indeed, the case put by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), is precisely the case we are offering.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has an intimate knowledge of the situation. As far as I know, no one, certainly in recent years, has employed the 1868 Act, which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), finds so attractive and so essential, and the powers of which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart), finds so attractive and such a disaster to desert. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, only the officers equipped under the Fishmongers' Corporation—I gladly concede that they did an excellent job we will be discussing that later—used those powers. The ordinary person, the ordinary proprietor, did not use them, I imagine, because, as I think would be admitted, the powers originally embodied in the 1868 Act would no longer be very cheerfully accepted by a 20th-century society. If there is an area where I can help, then I or any subsequent Secretary of State will certainly do so, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment.

Mr. Stuart: What we want to do is to make the Bill an effective Measure. It is quite clear that the existing powers have not been abused. It is clear also that the Bill would remove those powers from certain people. If we want to make this an effective Measure, and if it is indeed the desire of the Government, as I believe it to be, to stop poaching, then we think that it is a great pity to remove these powers at present. There having been no abuse, no harm would be done if these powers were retained.

Question put, "That subsection (2), to 'officer' in line 32, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 124.

Division No. 13.]
AYES
[5.5 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Channon, H.
Fisher, Nigel


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R (Blackburn, W.)
Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Foster, J. G.


Astor, Hon. M.
Clyde, J. L.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)


Baker, P.
Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.


Banks, Col. C.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Cranborne, Viscount
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glyn, Sir R.


Birch, Nigel
Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A.


Black, C. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)


Boothby, R.
Cundiff, F. W.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Bower, N.
Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S)
Harris, R. R. (Heston)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Boyle, Sir Edward
de Chair, S.
Hay, John


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Deedes, W. F.
Head, Brig. A. H.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Donner, P. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Heald, L. F.


Brooke, H. (Hampstead)
Drewe, C.
Heath, E. R.


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Dunglass, Lord
Higgs, J. M. C.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Duthie, W. S.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Elliot, Lieul.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount




Hollis, M. C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)


Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.
Mellor, Sir J.
Snadden, W. McN.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
Nicholls, H.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N Fylde)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicholson, G.
Stevens, G. P.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hurd, A. R.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nutting, Anthony
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Odey, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Hyde, H. M.
Ormsby-Gore. Hon. W. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Teevan, L. T.


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Jennings, R.
Osborne, C.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Keeling, E. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tilney, John


Lambert, Hon. G.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Pickthorn, K.
Turton, R. H.


Leather, E. H. C.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Profumo, J. D.
Vosper, D. F.


Linstead, H. N.
Raikes, H. V.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Rayner, Brigadier R.
Waterhouse, Capt. C.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


McAdden, S. J.
Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


McCallum, Maj. D.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Roper, Sir H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McKibbin, A.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G.


Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Wood, Hon. R.


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Scott, Donald
York, C.


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.



Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Marples, A. E.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Major Conant and




Mr. Wingfield Digby




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Jay, D. P. T.


Albu, A. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jenkins, R. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dye, S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Ayles, W. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Keenan, W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Kenyon, C.


Balfour, A.
Ewart, R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Fernyhough, E.
King, H. M.


Bartley, P.
Follick, M.
Kinley, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Foot, M. M.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lindgren, G. S.


Blyton, W. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Booth, A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Logan, D. G.


Bowden, H. W.
George, Lady M. Lloyd
Longden, F. (Small Heath)


Bowen, R.
Gibson, C. W.
McAllister, G.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gilzean, A.
MacColl, J. E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
McGhee, H. G.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grenfell, D. R.
McGovern, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McInnes, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Reading, N.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
McLeavy, F.


Burke, W. A.
Grimond, J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Burton, Miss E.
Gunter, R. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Callaghan, James
Hale, J. (Rochdale)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Carmichael, James
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Manuel, A. C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Messer, F.


Clunie, J.
Harrison, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Cocks, F. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.


Coldrick, W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)
Holman, P.
Moody, A. S.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Morley, R.


Crawley, A.
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hoy, J.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hubbard, T.
Mort, D. L.


Daines, P.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Moyle, A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Mulley, F. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, J. D.


Deer, G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Nally, W.


Delargy, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Neal, H.


Diamond, J.
Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.







Oldfield, W. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, S. S. (Nels[...])
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Padley, W. E.
Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Slater, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Paton, J.
Snow, J. W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Pearson, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
West, D. G.


Pearl, T. F.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Poole, Cecil
Sparks, J. A.
White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)


Popplewell, E.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pryde, D. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilkes, L.


Pursey, Commander[...]
Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Wilkins, W. A.


Rankin, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Rees, Mrs. D.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Rhodes, H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras. N.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)



Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thurtle, Ernest
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Timmons, J.
Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Royle.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 14.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)
Neal, H.


Albu, A. H.
Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, W. W.
O'Brien, T.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hargreaves, A.
Orbach, M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harrison, J.
Padley, W. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)


Bacon, Miss A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Balfour, A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bartley, P.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Pearson. A.


Benson, G.
Hoy, J.
Peart, T. [...]


Blyton, W. R.
Hubbard, T.
Poole, Cecil


Boardman, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Bowden, H. W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pryde, D. J.


Bowen, R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rees, Mrs. D.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jenkins, R. H.
Richards, R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Burke, W. A.
Keenan, W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
King, H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Callaghan, James
Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Carmichael, James
Lee, F. (Newton)
Royle C.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Champion, A. J.
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Chetwynd. G. R.
Longden, F. (Small Heath)
Simmons, C. J.


Cocks, F. S.
McAllister, G.
Slater, J.


Coldrick, W.
MacColl, J. E.
Snow, J. W.


Collick, P.
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)
Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir F.


Collindridge, F.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cove, W. G.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Deer, G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)


Delargy, H. J.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Timmons, J.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Vernon. Maj. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)
Wallace, H. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Manuel, A. C.
Webb, Rt. Hon, M. (Bradford, C.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Weitzman, D.


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Follick, M.
Messer, F.
Wilkes, L.


Foot, M. M.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Freeman, J. (Watford)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gage, C. H.
Morley, R.
Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gitzean, A.
Mort, D. L.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moyle, A.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Nally, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Sparks.




NOES


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Deedes, W. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Astor, Hon. M.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Baker, P.
Drewe, C.
Linstead, H. N.


Banks, Col. C.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)


Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)
Dunglass, Lord
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Bishop, F. P.
Fisher, Nigel
McCallum, Maj. D.


Boles, Ll.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Foster, J. G.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Boothby, R.
Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bower, N.
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Browne, J. N. (Govan)
Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)


Buehan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harris, R. R. (Heston)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mellor, Sir J.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Heath, E. R.
Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)


Channon, H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholls, H.


Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Nutting, Anthony


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Craddook, G. B. (Spelthorne)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Osborne, C.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Raikes, H. V.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Brigadier R.


Cundiff, F. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)







Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)
Sutcliffe, H.
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Roper, Sir H.
Teevan, L. T.
White, J. Baker (Canterbury)


Russell, R. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Soott, Donald
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.
Wills, G.


Smith E. Martin (Grantham)
Tilney, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Turner, H. F. L.
Wood, Hon. R.


Snadden, W. McN.
Turton, R. H.
York, C.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.



Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Vosper, D. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Storey, S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Mr. Studholme and


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt. C.
Mr. Wingfield Digby


Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

It being after Ten o'Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Clause 2.—(METHODS OF FISHING.)

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Captain DUNCAN:

Page 1, line 16, at end, insert:
Provided that this section shall not apply to any person using a gaff as auxiliary to fishing with rod and line.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) as there is a similar Government Amendment on the Order Paper.

Captain Duncan: May I be assured by the Secretary of State that he will, in fact, move that Amendment?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I do not know how regular this is, but I gladly give that assurance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "proprietor," to insert "or occupier."
This covers the occupier as well as the owner because in many cases there will be long leases.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Perkins: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
or gaff or snare or explosive or gun.
The object of this Amendment is to allow a proprietor to use any known method to exterminate pike in a river. As the Bill is now drawn, I understand

that the only method by which coarse fish and fresh water fish, including pike, can be taken from a river is by rod and line, net or trap. Consequently, I wish to add the words:
or gaff or snare or explosive or gun.
The Committee are, no doubt, aware that in many Scottish salmon rivers there are a lot of pike. I am certain that hon. Members in all quarters will agree that pike are vermin. I can give the House a small illustration. Last year I caught a small pike weighing about one and a half pounds; I cut him open and found four salmon parr inside him. At the end of a year 250 pike, if they feed four times a day, can destroy something like a million salmon. Pike are vermin and, in fact, do more damage in a river than all the poachers put together. I therefore move this Amendment to enable the proprietor of a river to use any method to get rid of these brutes.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: For very obvious reasons I cannot accept this Amendment. It is not that I am at all unsympathetic to the general proposition put by the hon. Gentleman. We are all aware of the great damage which pike can do in a river or a loch, although I should like to see the statistical evidence upon which the hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that one pike can do more damage than all the poachers. That is a rather wide conclusion.
We have, of course, made provision for the normal methods of attacking pike by the use of the snare and trap, but the other two methods advocated would, I fancy, do more harm than good. For example, if we authorise the use of a rifle


or a gun for pike, what can we say to a man who we meet on the river bank, with a rifle under his arm and who is obviously looking for a good-sized salmon? He will say, "No, you are making a great mistake. I am carrying this rifle only in case I see a pike. I should not dream of using it in any other circumstances." That would seem to me to be a thorough defence, although, I should think, a most unlikely tale.
As to the use of explosives, I am willing to be instructed in the technicalities of the subject, but it would seem to me a fairly risky business unless we were satisfied that an explosion would kill only pike. We are excluding the use of explosives because we know of the great damage done to salmon parr and trout by the use of explosives. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is a provision in Clause 9 by which, if it is established that explosives are needed for the benefit of the fishery, the Secretary of State is entitled to give such permission. If a case were made which convinced me that exclusively pike could be attacked or that a fishery could be improved by the use of explosives, then, of course, I would be anxious to be so persuaded, but I suggest that to permit the use of firearms and explosives to attack pike would lead us to a much worse position than we are in at present. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Perkins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the use of a gaff or landing-net as auxiliary to the taking of salmon or freshwater fish by rod and line.
This is the point on which an hon. Gentleman opposite asked for an assurance. The use of a gaff as an auxiliary to the ordinary methods of fishing by rod and line is legal at the present time except on the Tweed between certain dates. The dates are 15th September to 1st May. The Amendment makes it clear that the use of a gaff as an auxiliary exclusively to fishing by rod and line will continue to be legal except where it is at present prohibited. I hope, therefore, that

the Committee will accept this Amendment.

Mr. John Morrison: I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Secretary of State for including this Amendment. I have an Amendment down on similar lines later which is more or less covered by this one. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to answer the question about tailer, which was invented to protect fish. I hope that that will be covered as well.

Mr. McNeil: It is not an instrument with which I have any familiarity. I have not used it, but I understand the purpose of it. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that on Report I will introduce an Amendment to cover the legitimate use of the tailer.

Mr. Pryde: On behalf of my constituents I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the Amendment, which is sensible and practical.

Captain Duncan: I had an Amendment down on this point, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman's is better than mine, and I thank him for it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Brigadier Thorp: I should like to clear up a point—

Captain Duncan: On a point of order. I have an Amendment down to the Clause, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(3) No person shall use any instrument for dragging for nor any otter for catching salmon or freshwater fish.
Is it your intention to call it, Sir Charles?

The Deputy-Chairman: No.

Brigadier Thorp: The point I want to raise I may have to raise later. It is how the various Clauses affect England, particularly the district of the Tweed Valley. Does this Clause, which prevents a person taking fish and salmon in any inland water, cover the district of the River Tweed outwith Scotland? I believe that that is the right word, and that it means "outside" Scotland. Does the Clause cover that? What is the meaning of "inland waterway"? I see that the definition says:


'Inland waters' includes all rivers above estuary limits and their tributary streams, and all waters, watercourses and lochs whether natural or artificial draining into the sea.
What is the definition of "draining into the sea"? There are many small lochs and ponds, and even bigger spaces of water in north Northumberland, and I am not quite sure how far we can, or will be permitted, if the Bill becomes an Act, to fish for freshwater fish in these various pieces of water, and I should like an explanation of how far this Clause affects England and how far south it will be effective.

Mr. Woodburn: On Second Reading I raised some legal points about the definition of net and coble, and I suggested that the Lord Advocate might look into the question and that the Secretary of State might take powers to review cases where the physical condition of the river made it impossible for that method to be used in the traditional way. Such variations occur on the River Tay, and I raised the special problems of the River Forth. I take it that since there is no Amendment down by the Secretary of State he has been unable to find any method of introducing flexibility.
I should like to explain to the Committee that I have made some inquiries myself of the fishermen and other people connected with the Forth, and that I have been unable to find any method of making the law more specific without making it worse for the fisherman. It is not my intention, naturally, to make the position worse for the fishermen, but I should like to state that on Report, were such a method found, I should introduce such an Amendment. At the moment I do not propose to move one.

Captain Duncan: I want it made quite clear what exactly is the method of rod and line. The Amendment which I had down, about which I asked a moment ago, and which has not been called, was designed to try to obtain from the Government a clear statement of what rod and line really is. For instance, using an otter is fishing with rod and line, with a great many hooks at the end but it can be classed as rod and line. There are various instances of dragging which are a form of fishing with rod and line,

but I am not clear whether they are illegal fishing, and covered in the Bill.
I want the Minister who is to reply to explain quite clearly, in addition to the definition in the definition Clause, what is rod and line, because we should get it clear. We have to tighten up the Bill to prevent the poacher, driven from gang poaching, going into individual poaching harder than ever with single rods and lines and clearing pools almost as fast as the gangs are clearing them now with various illegal methods.

Mr. Pryde: There is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has just said. We require a clear definition of what legal rod and line fishing is. However, the point I want to raise is this. The Committee have now agreed that legal fishing can take place only by possession of a permit, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he will make provision for permits to be available to anglers early in the morning.

Sir D. Robertson: Further to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), as the law now stands the instruments he has in mind are illegal. They are all covered in Section 17 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868. It says:
Every Person that shall use any Light or Fire of any kind, or any Spear, Leister, Gaff, or other like Instrument, or Otter, for catching Salmon, or any Instrument for dragging for Salmon, or have in his Possession a Light or any of the foresaid Instruments under such Circumstances as to satisfy the Court before whom he is tried that he intended at the Time to catch Salmon by means thereof, shall be liable to a Penalty"—
of such and such an amount.
Under the Second Schedule of the Bill that section is entirely deleted, and so the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend, which has not been called, is of great importance to this Committee, because I can assure the Committee that this practice, which is known in Scotland as "sniggering," and which was referred to by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is a matter of very great importance in a Bill entitled "Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill."

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not called that Amendment whether it is important or not.

Sir D. Robertson: But I am speaking to the question that the Clause stand part, Sir Charles. You have come to a decision about the Amendment and that must stay, but if, by this Bill—and I think I am correct in saying this, and the Lord Advocate will, of course, say whether I am or not—Section 17 of the 1868 Act is deleted it will be possible for men to carry on these illegal practices—as they will. That seems to me an extraordinary situation.

Mr. McNeil: I think I can give fairly satisfactory answers to the few points that have been raised, though they will not all be quite acceptable. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), for his very clear statement on the subject. The Lord Advocate and I have gone into this subject very thoroughly, with, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will believe, anxiety to help him and to help his constituents, who are placed in difficulty.
We have not found a way by which we could so confine the practice and yet not open a floodgate to destroy the main purpose of the Bill. We cannot find a reasonable method which would give protection to the fisheries in Scotland, although no doubt that would be of benefit to my right hon. Friend's constituents. If, however, my right hon. Friend can, from his researches, in collaboration with his constituents, offer us any suggestion between now and Report stage we will naturally examine it very anxiously.
With regard to Berwick, the Bill, if approved, will be operative in precisely the areas defined. The definition will be found in Clause 20. I must confess that I am a little doubtful whether this will cover the dams and lades which are said to drain into the sea, because I suppose they are on that side of the Border.

5.30 p.m.

Brigadier Thorp: The point is that there are reservoirs which run into the sea eventually, but they do not run via the Tweed. Do they come under this Bill? They are in the watershed, being reservoirs built for supplying towns on the Tyne. They flow out to the sea through the Tyne; they are inland waterways flowing out to the sea, but they do

not flow into the district of the Tweed, although they are actually situated there.

Mr. McNeil: I am assisted by my right hon. Friend who is very familiar with that part of the world, and who is very anxious that none of his fishing tributaries should be interfered with. It seems unlikely that they would be affected by the Bill. We are concerned with those tributaries draining into the Tweed, and I would think—although perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me time to confirm it—that they are not affected.
I share the anxieties of the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), about the use of the otter, but I think both he and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) will find that their worries are covered by a proposed Amendment to Clause 22, which stands on the Order Paper in my name: in page 10, line 1, at the end to insert:
with such bait or lure as is lawful at the passing of this Act.
That means that rod and line is legal only so far as it is operated with lures which are normally accepted under the existing Act. This quite clearly excludes the otter, and another method about which the Committee will be very anxious—the use of a heavy hoop for sniggering. Both those will be excluded.
I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) thinks that this is useful. I was indebted to him on Second Reading for drawing my attention to the incompleteness of the definition. I gather that there are other parts of the Bill on which he will not find my attitude so acceptable, but perhaps we shall be able to do something there, too. There is a very reasonable anxiety on the part of fishermen about getting permits at 7 a.m., but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it would be pushing me too hard to ask me to provide in the Bill that all the people of all the associations who issue permits to anglers should be under a statutory obligation to provide them by 7 a.m.
I hope—and I think it is a reasonable hope—that agents and factors and associations will see that a fisherman who complies with the Statute should have his access to the waters early in the morning facilitated, but I think we would tangle


ourselves up if we tried to have a statutory provision on the subject.

Mr. Charles Williams: I am not certain how far the Bill goes in connection with the otter. I understand that only the normal bait or lure may be used. Suppose an otter is used, or suppose a bigger piece of wood than is used with an ordinary trout line is floated down with several flies on it, or put out along the lochside. That is quite practicable, if one knows how to do it. Is that legal or not? In some places timber is floated down a lochside. It would be perfectly possible to float timber down a loch and to have behind it, especially with a good wind, a line with flies on it. Is that legal or illegal? I appreciate that this is a complicated subject which may not have been examined. I am not happy about the legal position.

Mr. McNeil: I think it was quite clear to the committee of inquiry that if timber with lines attached is floated down a river or loch that is certainly illegal. There are only two legal methods of fishing for salmon and sea trout and they are quite clearly defined in the Bill. I also give it as my opinion that if the hon. Gentleman were to display with an angling net the irresponsibility he sometimes displays in this Committee and trailed an otter with a line he would be behaving illegally.

Mr. Williams: I do not think there is any great harm in what I have said, and it could quite well be done with many legal instruments for catching fish. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to look at this between now and Report to see whether he cannot clarify the position.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman disposes of rights in one of our northern counties and I have no doubt that people in the district will be gratefully encouraged by the free way in which he looks upon methods of fishing. I will, of course, look at this between now and Report stage, although I doubt very much whether I shall be able to add to what I have already said.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(ILLEGAL FISHING BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS ACTING TOGETHER.)

Lord Dunglass: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "either of the foregoing sections" and to insert:
the last foregoing section.
This is really an exploratory Amendment. We want to find out from the Lord Advocate whether, unintentionally, this Clause has been made too harsh. As he will have realised from what we have already accomplished, we feel that those who are subject to the penalties under Clause 1 should be subject to the maximum fine of £10 and also the forfeiture of their gear. On reading Clause 3, however, it would seem that two persons who are committing the offence of fishing without permission might render themselves liable to the maximum fine under Clause 5. I can hardly believe that is intended. If that is not so, why is there no mention of Clause 1? I am sure that there is a satisfactory explanation. It may be that this is a slip and that the penalties are too harsh.

The Lord Advocate: The reason why we embrace Clause 1 as well as Clause 2 within the provisions of Clause 3 is this: we might have the case of a gang fishing without legal permission but fishing by legal methods such as the net and coble. The only two legal methods so far as salmon fishing is concerned are either by rod and line or net and coble. If we had a gang using the net and coble method of fishing, although they had not the authority to fish in the area, they might have a very extensive haul, and if they were not brought within the ambit of Clause 3, they would be confined to the limited penalties of Clause 1, which is obviously most undesirable.
We might have two people said to be acting together carrying out a more innocuous form of poaching. That is a consideration which the courts will certainly take into account and, no doubt, impose the appropriate penalty in each case. If we are going out to get the gang, and that is, I think, the purpose accepted on all sides of the Committee and by all responsible persons, we have to recognise that the gangs may be operating without permission but operating by legal methods and, therefore, we want to bring them within the net.

Mr. Woodburn: People may be fishing with permission with net and coble. It is rather difficult to see how one can fish with net and coble, even with permission or with a licence, without having two or more persons, and it seems to me that the penalties are necessarily bound up with the question of whether they have permission or not. It seems that the penalties may apply to them even though they are fishing with licence from the authorities or proprietors, but any infringement of the law with regard to net and coble might bring them within rather heavy penalties. That is what causes alarm to legitimate fishermen who earn their livelihood by this method. They feel that they may unintentionally over-step the law and bring themselves within these rather high penalties. May I ask the Lord Advocate whether the question of permission really governs this Clause?

Lord Dung1ass: I think we can accept the Lord Advocate's explanation as being satisfactory. Obviously, the discretion of the courts must be exercised in this matter, and I would be content with that.

The Lord Advocate: We are only considering the question of whether or not Clause 1 should be brought within the ambit of Clause 3. That is the only matter on which I am addressing the Committee at present. For the reasons which I have indicated, I think that it is absolutely essential. If it be that people by what they deem to be legal methods actually fish by illegal methods, it is not Clause 1 which we would be considering but Clause 2, and that does not fall within the scope of this particular Amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that the courts do exercise proper discretion in all cases.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: Clause 3 states:
If two or more persons acting together do any act which would constitute an offence against either of the foregoing sections of this Act, every such person shall be liable to the penalties set forth in section five of this Act.
If one person does any act which is regarded as an offence, does he come under Clause 5?

Mr. Woodburn: May I, without repeating my previous question, ask the Lord Advocate if he can say if there is any

distinction made in the case of a fisherman earning his livelihood or whether that will be a matter simply for the discretion of the courts?

Mr. N. Macpherson: May I ask whether it was the intention of the Lord Advocate, in presenting this case, to cover the question of early warning or not? Where it is a question of one or two persons taking part in poaching and another person being stationed to give early warning, would that third person come under the Clause? Assuming that the answer is "yes"—I do not know whether it is or not—on the grounds that these three persons were intending to act together from the start, that they were a team and working together, what would be the position of a person who is entirely outside the team that was poaching and who thought it would be a good idea to give warning to them, although he was, in fact, not one of the team? It would be very much more difficult, I think, to bring such a casual warner within the terms of the Clause.

The Lord Advocate: I would point out to the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) that if only one person commits an offence under Clause 1 or Clause 2, he does not fall within the ambit of Clause 3. Such a person would be dealt with under Clause 1 or 2, dependent upon which Clause was invoked.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) is still worrying about his constituents who might think that they are fishing legally but who, in point of fact, are fishing illegally. We must assume that they are fishing with a legal right but employing methods which, in their hearts, they think legal but which the courts would deem illegal. If the court came to the conclusion that the methods were illegal, a conviction would have to follow. What penalties would be imposed would be a matter for the court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and, therefore, if it was an honest mistake the right hon. Gentleman need not fear that any dire punishments would be inflicted upon the persons.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) wanted to know about the person who gives warning. The classic case of that is a person who remains in a motor car and switches off and on the


lights as a method of giving warning of the approach of the police or water bailiffs. It is not for me to give, in advance, any definition of what the law might be in a particular case, but it is well-known that a person who is ert and part of the commission of an offence is equally guilty of the offence. In the Criminal Justice Act, 1949, we made it clear that this was also part of the law of Scotland so far as statutory law offences were concerned. Accordingly, a person who is stationed to give warning while other people commit an offence would quite clearly be art and part in the commission of that offence.
A good example is a member of a gang stationed outside a house into which housebreakers are breaking. If he has kept watch he is equally guilty of the offence with those who enter the house and commit the crime of housebreaking. So far as the person who is not stationed there to do that is concerned, but who does so, it may be a matter of the circumstances in each case, but if he did it knowingly, knowing that he was assisting in the commission of the offence by giving warning to those who were committing the offence to enable them to go scatheless, in my opinion he could be convicted of being art and part of the commission of the offence.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(PROHIBITION AGAINST USING EXPLOSIVE AND OTHER NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF FISH.)

Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, after "with," to insert, "or without."
We have been dealing so far with a whole series of malpractices concerning salmon fishing. We have been trying to make it more difficult for gangs, commercial spivs and even the rod and line expert to take salmon from our rivers. These are all minor offences. While we are taking all these steps to enable salmon to increase, we are ignoring the greatest offence of all. We are ignoring the people who pour noxious substances into the rivers which destroys all life and makes these rivers both evil and unsightly, as well as offensive to the neighbourhoods through which they flow.

This is a major offence which is being allowed to pass almost unnoticed.
I know that the introduction of these words would make a major change in the Bill. My right hon. Friend may say that this matter will be dealt with by another Bill at a later stage, or that the matter is under consideration. I suggest, however, that nothing but good could result if this Amendment were accepted. I know that many difficulties are involved in meeting its implications, but it would give sufficient time for the industrial undertakings adequately to deal with their effluent so that we can safeguard the fish life in our rivers.

Mr. McNeil: There is hardly a word my hon. Friend the Member for Trades-ton (Mr. Rankin) has said with which I disagree. There is no doubt that this is the subject which concerns us all. It is a subject which, because it has not been properly dealt with in the past, is doing great harm to Scottish interests. Nevertheless, I ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. He indicated that he thought there might be time for industrial interests to make the necessary arrangements to prevent the discharge of noxious effluent into our rivers. He will agree, on reflexion, that this Amendment is impracticable. He probably knows that there is a report available in the Vote Office which comes from the Committee that was set up under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Humphrey Broun Lindsay which deals with this subject?

Mr. McGovern: Humphrey Bogart?

Mr. McNeil: Humphrey Bogart might be able to deal with this subject more directly, but he would not deal with it so thoroughly as Sir Humphrey Broun Lindsay. We are actively examining this report, and I shall shortly be having consultations with a multiciplicity of interests affected by it and the Bill. There are not only the industrialists but the river boards and local authorities, as well as a great range of other interests, that must be consulted if we are to make a job of it. I can give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that we hope to be able to offer a Bill within a few months, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to see his way to withdraw his Amendment on that assurance.

Mr. Rankin: I have no desire to short-circuit possible legislation, or to create a new Bill by the insertion of a two-word Amendment. In view of the very comforting assurance that my right hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Stuart: I am sorry that it has not been possible to call the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of several of my colleagues. I am referring to the Amendment in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(c) sells in contravention of any of the provisions of Part 11 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, or any rules made thereunder, any substances containing hydrocyanic acid, cyanides or double cyanides of mercury and zinc or any other poison or other noxious substance which may be used to take or destroy fish; or.
The subject of this Amendment would appear to be particularly appropriate on a Clause which deals with noxious substances for the destruction of fish. Poison would seem to be particularly relevant in this connection—and I should have thought that a Clause in this respect would not have been out of order.
It seems to me that the present position in regard to the sale of certain poisons is somewhat lax in certain respects. Such poisons as cyanides can be brought from ironmongers and agricultural stores. We should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give some consideration to this matter.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(PENALTIES FOR CONTRAVENTIONS OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4)

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after "on." to insert "conviction on."
A person is not liable to either fine or imprisonment, or both, on indictment, but merely on conviction on indictment. Therefore, we are moving this drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(TAKING OF DEAD SALMON OR TROUT)

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the beginning, to insert:
Without prejudice to the operation of section three of the Diseases of Fish Act, 1937.
This Amendment is necessary to safeguard the powers of some fishery boards in regard to dead or dying fish. We need a safeguard under Section 3 of the Diseases of Fish Act, 1937. That section gives power to district boards to take practical steps to secure the removal of dead or dying fish.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF SALMON OR TROUT.)

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out subsection (3).

The Deputy-Chairman: As this Amendment and the next one, that to page 3, line 15, deal with the same matter I think that we can take them together.

Mr. Ross: This subsection makes it possible for a person to be convicted under any of the previous subsections on the evidence of one witness. This raises a fundamental point of Scottish justice. It is not that I have any sympathy with commercial poachers. I deplore their depredations as much as anyone else and I want action taken against them. It is not that I want to make it more difficult to get a conviction against them, but, against that, we have to balance the question of protecting the public and of the whole idea of justice. I oppose it, therefore, on the more general issue of the traditional sense of Scottish justice, which lays it down that there should be at least two witnesses before a man can be convicted of an offence.
It is a very serious thing that we should be rendering a man liable to a fine of £50 or three months' imprisonment and going so far as a fine of £500 and two years' imprisonment on the evidence of one witness. We should guard very carefully against the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Under this Clause we are making it possible for a man to be subject to these penalties and to that loss of freedom on the evidence of one witness only,


and thereby increasing the possibilities of a miscarriage of justice. That is a fundamental principle and is altogether apart from the fact that in some cases there might be persons who were determined somehow or other to get at an individual. The unsubstantiated evidence of one witness would be sufficient to cause these penalties to be imposed.
It was Lord Mackintosh, one of our learned Scottish judges, who spoke recently against this principle being brought into Scottish law. I hope that Scottish Members will raise their voices tonight and make sure that we will not deprive any Scottish person or anyone living in Scotland of his freedom for the sake of making it easier to get convictions in some particular cases. We have to watch carefully our fundamental freedom, and for that reason I strongly oppose the introduction of this subsection.

Mr. Rankin: I understood that this particular Amendment was being taken in conjunction with the one that stands in my name, in line 15, leave out "one witness" and add "two witnesses."

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, they both deal with the same point.

Mr. Rankin: I shall be quite in order, therefore, in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr.Ross). I realise fully that if the Bill is to be of any use it must work, and because of the circumstances under which the poachers work it will be very difficult to get two witnesses on whose testimony a conviction could be secured. Nevertheless, we have got to weigh, against that fact, the danger that this part of the Bill may be used as a weapon of victimisation. We face the further possibility, to which I do not think any Member of the Committee will subscribe, that certain persons, living in a small community, may find themselves able to apply victimisation, because one particular person will be vested with a certain authority under this Bill and might be able perhaps to say something against another which might not necessarily be justified.

Commander Galbraith: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that somebody placed the fish in the possession of the gentleman who is afterwards brought to court?

Mr. Manuel: There might be no fish.

Mr. Rankin: It does not always necessarily follow that a person needs to have a fish in his possession before he can be charged under the Bill as it stands. That is where the danger of victimisation might possibly arise. I know, of course, that it may be argued that there is precedent in Scottish law for the testimony of one witness. It may be that my right hon. Friend will be able to say, "We have instances already where one witness is all that is demanded." All I would say, in reply, is that everyone on this side of the Committee has condemned that as bad law. We have condemned it in the past, and if that is to proceed tonight I am still condemning it. That is the reason why I suggest that two witnesses should be inserted into the Bill instead of one.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) appealed to Scottish Members to raise their voices on this question. I gladly respond to the invitation which he extended to me, but I am sorry that I cannot raise it in the strains which he would wish me to do, because I very much hope that the Lord Advocate will stand very firm on this point and resist the plea of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and the somewhat weaker plea made by his hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). When I say it was weaker, I do not mean it offensively, but the hon. Gentleman himself indicated in the closing sentences of his speech that he did not go as far as his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock in the soundness of his arguments. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock took the very high line of the elementary principle of Scottish justice. The hon. Member for Tradeston said no doubt the Lord Advocate could produce very good arguments to show that this was not really contravening the law of Scotland in any way.

Mr. Rankin: rose—

Mr. McKie: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that when we are in Committee he can make a second speech, and he can follow me with another speech if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir Charles.
I was about to say, when I resisted the hon. Gentleman's enticement to give way.


that the Solway Act, 1804, has certainly given to the salmon fishing in that famous estuary the protection of one witness only in the matter of convicting poachers. I do not know if hon. Gentlemen opposite will like it any better because it has been in existence for 150 years. It is true that it was a piece of legislation promoted by a Tory Government, though it was reinforced by the Whigs, which may make it more acceptable to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has stood the test of time and under it the one-witness principle has been maintained.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston, who seemed to be on weak ground, knew that not merely might the principle of one witness exist in Scottish law, but also that it was necessary in some cases because of the difficulty of securing a conviction in poaching cases as only one person might have been available. I am sure that that was the underlying principle of the Solway Act of 1804. The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that it would have been very difficult for the Solway stake net fishing, which has been a very good thing for Scotland, not merely for those who are engaged in it but as a means of providing food for the people of Scotland generally, to promote their industry to the flourishing condition which it still enjoys unless the one witness principle had been enacted in the Act of 1804 by a Tory Government, supported by the Whigs, in those days of long ago.
I hope that I have said enough to show hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have no support from me for the idea that there should be more than one witness. Many of the people who engaged in the Solway stake net fishing industry are anxious to know whether, if we agree to this Clause going forward, the Act of 1804 will be repealed. It says in the Schedule that two Sections of the Act are to be repealed. They want to know whether they will have the benefit of the one witness which this Clause of the Bill provides. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to clear away doubt on this matter. Apart from that point, I certainly support the principle of the one witness.

Mr. McGovern: I oppose the whole proposal that it shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this Clause

on the evidence of one witness. My mind goes back to the years 1930 and 1931, and to the time when a storm arose here one evening because a Clause was proposed in a Transport Bill to give power to convict on the evidence of one policeman. The Minister had to withdraw the Clause and alter it. Members of the House of Commons were vigilant in seeing that justice should be done, and although they were prepared to give the utmost protection to pedestrians and to the community in general, they wanted to safeguard the rights of any individual who was brought before the court.
I am prepared to hear what the Lord Advocate has to say in defence of this proposal. A man could be caught in an act, and it would only be one witness who would determine whether he had committed a crime or not. The man could be caught with explosives and with all the gear necessary to commit an offence. The evidence of one witness might be deemed to be all that was necessary. Nevertheless, we have known in the past of cases in the court where there have been questions of identification. An individual might have been suspected of committing an offence, and some one person would say: "That is the man who was guilty of the crime." Surely no court, whether of judge or sheriff, even in those circumstances, should be given power to convict.
I have spent a long period or time hearing trials in the High Courts, sheriff courts and justices' courts. I should be very loath to put power into the hands of any person sitting on a bench to convict upon the evidence of only one witness. That would be an extremely dangerous thing to do. Members of this Committee would be failing in their duty, no matter what side they may sit on, if they were prepared to give power in the bold way that it is sought in the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Sometimes, in defence of a Clause of this kind, a case is put by a Minister, but we have always to remember that when a judge or sheriff is dealing with an offender he does not take notice of the Minister's statement as reported in HANSARD. He takes notice of the law as laid down in the Act of Parliament. We want to make sure that we say exactly what is meant when we give


power to convict on the evidence of one witness.
I am told that this principle has been the law of Scotland for 150 years, but to say that it should not be altered now is the most outrageous doctrine I have ever heard. Many of the laws which have been operating in this country are only now beginning to be altered, when democracy is beginning to operate. We see not only the necessity to change such laws but the kind of people who made the laws which have operated in this country. Hon. Members need be in no doubt that if this matter is taken to a Division, and if there has not been a satisfactory answer from the Government Front Bench, then I shall go into the Lobby against this Clause. It is outrageous to propose to place power into the hands of individuals to convict on the evidence of only one person.
I know of men who have been convicted in the past on the evidence of two or three witnesses, yet I have been convinced that they were innocent. We know that people may have a certain amount of spleen in a vindictive way which makes them go and swear false evidence against others. I say that the greatest criminal in the country is entitled to the greatest protection we can give to ensure that justice is done. It is outrageous to propose what is in the Clause, and I heartly oppose it and will go into the Lobby to vote it down.

Mr. Hoy: I add my voice to the voices of other hon. Members in this Committee, because I am very loath to make what would be a fundamental change in the law of Scotland. I support my hon. Friends the Members for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I would say, in passing, that my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston is on very much better ground on this occasion than he was with his last Amendment. A very distinguished member of the Scottish bench, only on 18th December last year, when summing up in a case in the Glasgow High Court, said something which was a complete answer to the hon. Member who said that this principle has been the law of Scotland for 150 years. I think the hon. Member was arguing on a wrong supposition. He ought to have made it clear that what was done in the Act affecting the Solway did not apply generally to the law of Scotland. The

learned lawyer to whom 1 have referred said:
It is a firmly fixed principle in the law of Scotland that the essential details of a charge cannot be proved by the statements of one witness alone. There must be corroborative evidence.
Because of that, he gave a decision in favour of an accused person. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was it?"] Lord Mackintosh. I think he was stating the law of Scotland.
It would be a great departure to make it possible under a Bill of this kind for the evidence of one witness to convict a person who can be found in or near some fishing grounds. It might even be that because of a grudge by one person against another a conviction might take place. I am sure that the Committee will be loath to depart from what has been the law of Scotland. We shall certainly listen to what the Lord Advocate has to say, but I can assure him that he will have to make a very strong case to convince hon. Members, at least those on this side of the Committee, that this change in the law ought to be made.

The Lord Advocate: I was hoping, in view of the progress that we had been making with the Bill, that despite the fact that the Rule has not been suspended we might be able to complete the Committee stage today. Therefore, I intervene at this stage in the hope that I may be able to short-circuit what might otherwise be a very long and interesting discussion on a very interesting point. I do not think I need assure my hon. Friends, nor hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this departure from the normal law—

Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I ask for clarification of the position? I understood my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, to say that the Rule has not been suspended but according to the Order Paper it has been. Which is correct?

The Deputy-Chairman: There was a good deal of noise going on at the time in the House. The Motion to suspend the Rule is on the Order Paper, but it was not moved. So we stop at 10 o'clock.

The Lord Advocate: I trust that the information which I have managed to convey will sink into the minds of those for whose benefit it was mentioned. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentle-


men opposite, as well as my hon. Friends, will appreciate that we did not lightly depart from what is, I entirely agree, a fundamental principle of the Scottish law of evidence. We gave this matter very great consideration indeed. I will give the Committee the reasons which eventually weighed in favour of adopting this Clause.
Before doing so I will make some general observations. While conceding to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and to my other hon. Friends that this is very much a fundamental principle of our law in Scotland, I do not think that one could say that it would be outrageous to convict on the evidence of one witness and one witness alone, because it is, for instance, the general rule in the English criminal court that it is sufficient to take the evidence of one witness to justify a conviction. There are exceptions to it, but that is the general rule. I am not praying that in aid to support what we are doing here, but I am merely rebutting the suggestion that it is outrageous to have such a code of law. We have our own code of law in Scotland, and I wish to approach the problem from that point of view.
My second observation is this. The subsection only permits the court to convict on the evidence of one witness; in other words, it would be open for the court to say, "I am not satisfied on the evidence of one witness." On the other hand, it would be competent for the court to say, "I am satisfied on the evidence of one witness"; but I can give the assurance that it is the practice of the court to look perhaps even more carefully at the evidence in cases where the evidence of one witness would suffice as compared with cases in which there is a multiplicity of witnesses to give evidence.
Be that as it may, we come to the question whether or not this is justifiable. Here we come to the very basis of the Bill—the fons et origo of the Bill—the attempt to get the gangs. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The great difficulty—I ask hon. Members to consider the practical difficulty—was that the gangs in their depredations do not usually select the points where multitudes of witnesses will be present to give testimony against them; normally they select a remote part of the country where a good pool is

available and where there is little likelihood of anyone being present to witness their offence. In many cases the only possibility of their being detected is by a water bailiff or some other person being on patrol on a lonely stretch.
From the information put before us, and having regard to various submissions made before the Maconochie Committee, we were satisfied that the likelihood of getting any legal evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction in these circumstances was very remote if we had to depend on the ordinary law whereby we require either two witnesses or one witness corroborated by facts and circumstances. I would say parenthetically that for that reason, if either of these Amendments were to be selected, I should prefer the one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. 'Ross) to that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) because I believe that the latter is rather misleading.

Mr. Ross: Am I to understand that there has not been a single conviction of any of the gangs in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: The difficulty is —I was coming to the point—that under the existing law there was no provision comparable to the provisions of this Clause and one of the great difficulties which we experienced was that unless we caught the person in flagrance delicto our hands were tied, and if we managed to get the person coming from the locus, whether it was 300 yards, three miles, or 30 miles away, stopped the vehicle and found it laden with salmon, nets or explosives, we could do nothing, because under the existing law we could not identify that with the commission of an offence at a certain point. Evidence to that effect was given by the Chief Constables' Association, who pointed out the weakness in the law, and it was in order to stop up that gap in the law that the previous subsections in the Clause were introduced. The Committee will agree that these are very necessary provisions, because if we are to carry out warfare against these gangsters we must have the necessary weapons with which to do it. Let us be realistic about that.
Having taken that power, we were faced with the difficulty that unless we managed to get them in circumstances where we had more than one witness


available or in circumstances where a witness could be corroborated by facts and circumstances—the standing general law of Scotland in this matter—it would be impossible to get a conviction. We were dealing with a case where much of the evidence might be obtainable only in remote parts of the country where we could expect only one individual to be. That is the practical difficulty, and I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate that we had to approach it from that point of view. In the last analysis it came down to this, "Are we prepared to have some effective sanction to stop up this gap or, in order to preserve this general law and not to make any infringement of it in this case, are we prepared to lose the sanction which we might otherwise have?"
When we came to examine that, we found, not in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), but in another much more analogous case, that the general law of Scotland had already been departed from in this sense. On the question of poaching for game. which is an analogous case to poaching for salmon, we find that an offence against the Poaching Prevention Act of 1862 is at present an offence which can be proved by the evidence of one witness. So that this is no entirely new innovation into the law of Scotland, although it is true that all these cases are exceptions to the general rule.
6.30 p.m.
I do not want to deal with a number of other illustrations where by statute Parliament has said that the evidence of one person will be sufficient in Scotland, because I do not think they are apposite to this debate. However, the case of the Poaching Prevention Act is apposite because the courts have held that that Act attracts the provisions of the Day Trespass Act of 1832, and accordingly one witness would suffice.
In the last analysis we had to make up our minds whether we were to carry out effective warfare against these people or not; whether we were to have the means at our disposal not only to catch them, because that is not sufficient, but to put them into court and get a conviction against them, which is the important part of the proceedings. After grave consideration, we came to the conclusion that without this provision it might well be

that the other provisions of the Clause which are acceptable and desirable and necessary might become absolutely nugatory. I make this personal assertion, that I did not like departing from this normal rule of law. In the light of that explanation, and in these circumstances, I trust that hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends will accept this provision in the spirit in which it was moved into the Clause.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been dealing with an important point of Scottish law, but he left me in a little doubt. As we are all anxious to take the proper view in this matter, and bearing in mind the importance of maintaining our Scottish traditions, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to examine the following points.
He said that if he were pressed upon this matter—I suppose he meant that if it had to be a choice of one thing or another—he would prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to the other Amendment, since the former proposes to leave out subsection (3) altogether. Suppose that were done, would it then be impossible for any offender under this subsection to be prosecuted and convicted on the evidence of only one witness? If that is so, the re-marks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman run more powerfully. I was left in some doubt because it seems to me possible that the law of Scotland as it now is. and the procedure of the courts as it now is, might make it possible for a judge to have only one witness and, because the evidence was so strong, to decide that the evidence of that one witness was adequate to prosecute.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that is not possible, I shall have to vote against either Amendment; if he says it would be possible, then I, and perhaps other hon. Members, would like to think this matter over. It is one of great importance and the right hon. and learned Gentleman might feel disposed to clear our minds on it.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I am not quite satisfied with the explanation which the Lord Advocate has given us. It still remains the fact that any person
found in possession of any salmon or trout, or any instrument …


can be convicted on the evidence of a single witness. The Committee ought to weigh this with great care, because when it comes to an issue of balancing technical convenience in the operation of an Act of Parliament against the fundamental rights of the individual concerned in the prosecution, the benefit of any doubt we may have in our minds ought to be cast in favour of the rights of the individual rather than in favour of the convenience of operating the Act. We should not lightly go into the Lobby, if this comes to a Division, in support of the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend. So many things are already weighted against the individual in an isolated area confronted with all the pomp and ceremony of a court prosecution, that further to make him subject to conviction on the evidence of one witness is altogether too much to his disadvantage.
I am fairly sure that what the Committee, the Lord Advocate, and those who framed this provision had in mind was the person in a remote area where there are not many bailiffs or policemen or witnesses. These may be the places where most of the. offences take place, but the fact remains that to many of us on this side of the Committee it seems possible under this provision to have the victimisation of individuals who will fall under the suspicion of a bailiff and who at present cannot be convicted without more than one witness.
It is all very well for the. Lord Advocate to say that this is an attack upon the gangs. It is not confined to an attack upon the commercial gangs. This can be used against any isolated individual, and it can be used a lot more effectively against him than it can against organised gangs comprising several persons. In fact, I doubt whether one witness coming forward against the testimony of six, or eight or 10 persons in a gang of alleged poachers would find it possible to get a conviction, whereas his testimony would be much stronger coming forward against an iso-lated individual. Therefore, this will weigh more heavily and unfairly against the isolated individual, who is easily victimised and possibly deliberately selected for framing up, than against the gangs against whom it is intended to operate.
I wish the Lord Advocate could produce some stronger arguments why we should depart from the existing practice of the prevailing law before we go into the Lobby. If we do divide, which I hope we shall do on this issue, I shall go into the Lobby against it, because it is a nefarious doctrine that we should subjugate the fundamental rights of the individual to the convenience of the operation of any Act of Parliament.

Sir William Darling: The Committee will have thrilled to the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan). I have been struck by the fact that the advice tendered to the Committee has come mostly from representatives of well-known sporting areas—the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy)—

Mr. Rankin: And the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling).

Sir W. Darling: The Committee would be well advised to take the advice of the Lord Advocate on this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman at any rate has moved about the country outside his constituency to an extent sufficient to know that when persons go poaching they do not go in large numbers. [An HON. MEMBER: "How does the hon. Member know?] Poaching is an individual affair.
Supporters of the Government, in the discussion here tonight, have been deliberately saying that they want to defeat the law, that the protection of fish is an interest which they do not have in mind, and that they are going to make it quite impossible for anyone who commits a misdemeanour to be arrested. Do these gentlemen from urban areas of Glasgow and Lanark possess any elements of imagination? What happens on the banks of the Tweed on a dark, rainy night in the fishing season? Persons engaged in these expeditions go alone and unac-ompanied. To suggest that they should have a crowd of witnesses before they can be convicted is a preposterous idea that arises only the minds of Western Isles mystics or Clydeside proletarians.
We are dealing with a thing which is always done in the dark, and the presence of witnesses in order to obtain a conviction is quite impossible. This is a case


where two are company but one is a much more desirable agent for the public welfare than would be a crowd. I beg the Socialist supporters of the Government on this occasion, therefore, to be content with the unitarian doctrine and not the theory that there must be two in order that justice shall be done.
I should like to add my own question to one which has been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart). Subsection (3) states that:
It shall he lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.
My hon. Friend asked about the effect of the subsection. The Lord Advocate has expressed, surprisingly enough, a mild approval for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in preference to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston. I take it that the effect of the removal of the subsection would be, surely, that the courts would require what common law demands: that is, two witnesses. That, in effect, allows the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to achieve his purpose by means of a simple guise. That may suit the convenience of the Lord Advocate, but I must point out that if he accepts the deletion of the subsection he is surrendering to his own supporters. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make his position clear before the Debate finishes.
I stand by one witness—"Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone." If there are other hon. Members who are pleading for the individual, I also am pleading for the individual, and the one for whom I am pleading is the one witness who is justified in Clause 7.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: More and more as the Debate develops, I come to the conclusion that the River Tweed is related to the main object of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) because, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who lives on the bank of the Tweed, the whole question of conviction in the area of the River Tweed is electrical in its effect. My constituents in Peebles assure me that it is far cheaper

and more economical to go and admit that they have been in default than to plead not guilty and go back a second day, because they are bound to be convicted on the evidence of one witness and will lose two days' work, which they can ill afford.

Sir W. Darling: How many constituents of the hon. Member have been in this precarious position?

Mr. Pryde: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, on Second Reading, said that a great number of my constituents were poachers, especially on his preserves. I resent and refute that suggestion because in my two counties we have the most expert anglers in Scotland. If any Member disputes that, I am quite willing to nominate six men—

Sir W. Darling: One witness would be be enough.

Mr. Pryde: We will put up one judge, who will not be the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who is quite prepared to condemn even a gang of men on the evidence of one witness. There is no reference to gangs in subsection (3), which does, however, mention "a person." There can be no excuse, therefore, for refusing to accept the Amendment.

Brigadier Thorp: Does the subsection apply to England or is it not necessary because we have only one witness now? If it is correct, as I think, that we need only one witness now, surely the Bill is only bringing the Scottish law into line with that of England. I see no reason for giving any heed to the Amendment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not persist with the subsection, which has had only one apologist for it here tonight, namely, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who put forward one of his usual diverting but perverting arguments in favour of the subsection.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. and learned Member said that there was only one apologist. May I remind him also of the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Hughes: I should have said, one apologist for the Lord Advocate. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be misled by that one apologist of his


into persisting with the subsection, which is thoroughly unethical, thoroughly wrong, and, indeed, juridically unacceptable.
There is no doubt that on general principles two witnesses are desirable in every criminal case. The object of having a second witness is to corroborate the first or to contradict him, to prevent mistakes and prejudice, or to prevent the accused being the victim of a plot. It may be said—indeed, it has been said—that the very nature of the case here provides corroboration for the prosecution. The corroboration suggested is that a person may be found in
possession of salmon or trout or of any instrument, explosive, poison or other noxious substance…
What is to prevent these things being "planted" on the simple fisherman? It has been said that the prosecution's witnesses in cases such as are envisaged here travel alone. What is to prevent their witness—the gamekeeper, the warden, or whoever he may be—travelling on his inspections in company? He would be safer, happier, and a more credible witness if he had corroboration. I hope that the subsection will be rejected as thoroughly bad and unethical.

Mr. Gage: This is one of the rare occasions when the Committee should support the Lord Advocate. Apart from the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) said, that this provision achieves the very desirable object of bringing the law of Scotland into line with the law of England and Northern Ireland, it is astonishing that no one has so far mentioned what is important about a witness—that he tells the truth. If one can get 20 people to tell a lie 20 times, the court will always accept it, but there is nothing magical in the number. Courts are there for the purpose of weighing evidence and of deciding whether they will accept the evidence of one person who is an honest person telling the truth or of 10 people who seem to be dishonest.

Mr. Pryde: This is Scotland, not Belfast. What would be the position if the witness were not an honest person?

Mr. Gage: It is just as easy to decide that if it is only one person as if it were more than one person. The effect of the

present law of Scotland is that the hands of authority are tied where it so happens that a bad case of poaching has been witnessed by only one person. All this Clause does is to enable a case to be brought in those circumstances. It does not by any means follow that there will be a conviction. There will be a conviction if the one witness is believed. It is doing violence to those who sit in sheriff courts in Scotland to say that they are incapable of judging the veracity of the witness when there is only one witness.
In some cases—and I imagine the law of Scotland is the same as that of England—it is desirable to have two witnesses or more, as in cases of violence or cases affecting young children, but one would have thought that if the person gives evidence on oath and appears to be telling the truth it would be perfectly proper for a case to be brought in such circumstances. For those reasons, I think the Clause should be supported.

The Lord Advocate: We have had a very full debate and I imagine that all the various representative views have been aired. I trust that after I have tried to answer the various points that have been raised, the Committee will feel in a position to come to a conclusion. I have the impression that anything more that may be added, in view of the very full argument, would be only dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the arguments already put forward.
I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) never thought he would live to see the day—nor did I—when he would be described, however mistakenly, as the sole apologist for the Lord Advocate. In reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), we are not—and I say this advisedly—trying to bring the law of Scotland into line with the law of England. It so happens that the net result of this is that for this particular purpose the law of Scotland will be the same as the law of England. But that is an entirely different matter, because one is merely the result of a certain necessary act and the other would be a most retrograde step. The House knows full well that in recent years the tendency has been for the law of England to adopt the law of Scotland, to the great benefit of the law of England.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) wondered why I said that I preferred the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). The reason is that if the subsection were deleted, we would be left with the existing law of evidence to cover cases of this nature. If we adopted the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston and put in "on the evidence of two witnesses," from one point of view it would be quite unnecessary, and from the other point of view quite misleading, because in law we require the evidence either of two witnesses or one witness corroborated by facts and circumstances. Therefore, we need not have two direct witnesses speaking to the commission of the offence. If we had to choose between the two Amendments, it would be better to delete the subsection, leaving the existing law to apply rather than to put in something which from one point of view is unnecessary, and from the other may be misleading.
I must again ask the Committee to have regard to the factors which motivated us in making this exception to the general rule. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) said, a technical convenience to over-ride individual rights. The practical problem is whether or not we are to enforce the provisions of this particular Clause. If we want to carry out the provisions of this Clause, having regard to the factors to which I have referred, I am afraid we require this. If we do not want to do it, we may have what may be a gesture in the Bill, but something which will not be an effective remedy. That is the choice hon. Members must make, and I can assure them that, whether they divide on this or not, the position was not reached lightly, but only after careful and mature consideration.

Mr. M. MacMillan: My right hon. and learned Friend would agree that this would not only apply to organised gangs but also to individual persons?

The Lord Advocate: That is perfectly true, and there is nothing unusual about that, because whenever we are making a law we have to provide for a whole range of cases which come within a particular category. We do not have a tariff

according to each particular case. That is not the way we work our law—

Mr. Hector Hughes: rose—

The Lord Advocate: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will let me finish what I am saying. Accordingly, while it is true that this law would apply to the individual as to the gang, the fact remains that it is equally difficult to bring a case against an individual as against a gang, and there we are in pari causa
The hon. Member for Belfast, South, probably did me less than credit when he said that no one had mentioned the fact that the essential thing in relation to this particular provision was that it should be the evidence of one credible witness. In an earlier speech I laid great emphasis on the point that the court must be prepared to accept the evidence of that witness. In a normal case that is not sufficient because there still has to be corroboration of that, as far as Scotland is concerned. But at the end of the day, if this Clause were passed, the court would have to be satisfied and—may I reiterate a principle which those of the profession South of the Border, who have more experience of the one witness case than I have, may substantiate?—when there is only one witness the court tends to look more particularly at the evidence of that one witness than it would at that of a multitude of witnesses all corroborating each other.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles suggested that there was always a danger of a frame-up and that we had to be careful and suspicious of those dangers, but he finished by asking me to frame up a new Clause. I think he has to realise that if we are to proceed on the basis that evidence might be perjured, it does not matter whether we provide for one witness or for 20 witnesses under the Bill. If we are to proceed on the basis that the evidence is to be perjured evidence, there is no chance at all of getting justice in the country.
I hope that in these circumstances we can come to a decision on this very difficult matter, but in the circumstances I ask my hon. Friends who have spoken against this provision to think very carefully again and to realise that we need it to make this an effective Measure.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I intend to speak briefly and to appeal to the Lord Advocate to consider one or two points which I do not think have been dealt with up to now. Incidentally, I was extremely sorry to see the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), rather slipping from the attitude he took up on Second Reading, when he supported fairly generously some remarks which I made about trout fishing as against the taking of salmon. This provision applies equally to the small trout, the insignificant trout, as to the salmon which is so often caught for commercial and other purposes.
I have a fairly intimate knowledge of the Highlands, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) in the major part of the case he made out. But anyone who has an intimate knowledge of the Highlands will agree with me that it is completely wrong to think that we shall be in a better position, with one witness, in combating gangs who are raiding rivers and other waters to catch salmon for commercial purposes.
Having an intimate knowledge of the position, I am quite certain that if we are to combat and stop these gangs it will not be done by the one-witness procedure. If we are to combat them the persons employed by the estate owners or the owners of the fishing rights would all be able to offer evidence of the depredation when it occurred. Nor do I believe that it would be easier for one witness to deal with the question of identification, for example, in the case of five or six men in a gang, than it would be for two or more employees or gamekeepers or water bailiffs.
Above all, as one who has taken an active part in a small way in burgh police court work, I am certain that the majority of such courts in Scotland are completely against imposing fines in respect of prosecutions when only one witness is available. We have set our minds against that even when that one witness has been our local policeman. We knew that so much could come into the evidence that could be wrongly construed. I am aware of certain Highland villages where certain persons who are not too badly thought of members of the community have been fairly successful in getting a trout or a salmon for the pot despite the attempts

of a particular gamekeeper to apprehend them or secure a conviction against them. That was the position not because the gamekeeper was there alone, but because those he sought were more natural to the soil and to the taking of game or fish than the man who was acting for the landowner. I ask the Lord Advocate to have another look at this matter. I do not think that we shall be on strong ground if the principle of one witness is adopted.

Mr. Carmichael: I agree with the Lord Advocate that he did not introduce this Clause lightly. I am quite satisfied that no one with the great knowledge which he has of the law would deliberately try to frame a Bill which would make it easy to convict people without a fair and just trial. He has, however, to recognise that this is undoubtedly a very serious departure. There is nothing in the provision that indicates the need for corroborative evidence. It simply states:
It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.
I was associated with an Amendment which suggested the deletion of the subsection. That would not have hampered the Lord Advocate in proceeding with the Bill. One can see that if this principle is established in dealing with salmon it will be justifiable to argue the case for one witness without corroborative evidence in respect of every Bill brought forward dealing with Scotland. I could put up a stronger case in justification of the principle of one witness being applied against a person who might ill-treat a child or commit any number of criminal acts than could be made in the case of salmon poaching.
Let us revert to the first point made by, the Lord Advocate—that it is the gangs at which we are trying to aim. My right hon. and learned Friend admits that. I agree that if the law is applied it must be applied universally, that it must cover everybody, but because we are trying to get at the gangs we are, by this provision, curtailing the law. I remember that before the General Election the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who then represented an English constituency, drew attention to the gang poaching in the North of Scotland. I mention this point because it has been suggested today that all this poaching is done silently in the dead of night, and that it


is difficult to catch the people concerned. He told us on one occasion how people were actually loading the salmon into wagons are taking them in truckloads to London—

Mr. McGovern: With faked labels.

Mr. Carmichael: Yes, faked labels are all the rest of it. They did not do that in the silence of the night when no one was likely to catch them. That is organised gang poaching; it cannot be done by one person. If they are organised in this way how is it possible for people to go to the North of Scotlare are silently use nets? The Committee reporting on this matter said that the offenders used the nets in groups to gather in the salmon. If we are to believe that they are organised to that extent are the counties so denuded of population or people in authority that they can only furnish, on an odd occasion, one person who is likely to catch the offenders?
I am not prepared to accept that view. My greatest objection to this proposal is the departure in the law that it represents. It is a retrograde step that is being taken. It may be argued that the courts pay more attention to one witness than to two or three witnesses, although it is a slight reflection on the judge if it is suggested that he becomes more alert are more careful in such circumstances. That has been said in effect by some learned Members on the other side of the Committee, are that was a view—

The Lord Advocate: I do not wish to be misunderstood. What I intended to convey, whether I did so or not, so far as the evidence of the person is concerned, was that the court was likely to scrutinise perhaps much more carefully the evidence of one person than the evidence of a series of people, all of whom were more or less giving substantially the same evidence.

Mr. Carmichael: I will not pursue that point beyond a brief answer. The Lord Advocate has on many occasions acted for the defence in the courts of Scotlare. One of the strong endeavours, are rightly so, of defending counsel in a court is to try to refute the evidence of one witness for the prosecution with the evidence of another witness for the prosecution. That is a strong point. The person in the

dock must always try to prove that the evidence for the prosecution is not as sound as the prosecution is endeavouring to make it. But we are going to deny him that right. As has already been said in the debate today, it is the easiest thing in the world for a bailiff to take offence at somebody living in the area and because of it that person can be constantly prosecuted.
Some of us know from our own experience in the small courts of our cities that it is not uncommon even for two witnesses to get their knife into a person so that that person is then constantly before the courts. I do not think we should go much further than that, and I beg the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland to put their heads together on this matter. I do not think we could have two better heads for the purpose. Knowing the feeling of the Committee, knowing that this is a departure which can go right through the whole of the Scottish law, I beg of them to think it over and at least try to avoid any division; and recognise the position of at least one witness and corroborative evidence.

Mr. Ross: I rise merely to ask the Lord Advocate if he will have another look at this matter. I have listened to the debate, and despite the rather tautological verbal acrobatics of so smooth and skilled an individualist as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), and the more serious address on the subject by the Lord Advocate, I think that no Member of the Committee can be convinced of the absolute necessity for this departure from Scottish justice.
The Lord Advocate himself stated that if the Amendment in the name of myself and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) were accepted it would mean that the evidence of one witness would have to be supported by corroborative evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or another witness"]—or another witness. But leave aside the other witness for the moment. I think everyone realises that the case is not quite as serious as he originally made out. But this is very serious if we look at it from the point of view of the person in the dock. No other corroborative evidence needs to be brought forward, other than the plain statement of a witness that the person


in the dock is connected with this and has done that. That, and that alone, can bring down the penalty. The subsection says:
It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.
It does not say anything else, and we cannot talk ourselves out of it.
We are introducing this principle into Scottish law, and just as the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) cited an 1804 law as a precedent for this, probably in a few years this will be cited as a precedent for a further extension of the principle. I would seriously ask the Lord Advocate—I know he has looked at it before—if he would have yet another look at the matter. I do not want to bring the Scottish law down to the level of the English law, no matter how high that level may be. I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to remember the date. This is 24th January. Probably tomorrow he will be going to a Burns supper. What would Burns have said about this kind of justice? I suggest in all seriousness that this matter requires more consideration. I hope the Lord Advocate will give us that assurance and obviate the necessity of forcing a Division.

7.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: Without giving any guarantees I would like to say—as I should not like to be misunderstood about this, or, at a later stage, be deemed to be going back on any promise I have given —that we shall look at this again, as we look at any serious matter in view of strong representations from either side of the Committee. We will look at this again between now and Report stage, but the difficulties to which I have already referred seem at the present date to favour having the Clause as it stands at present. We will see if there are any other circumstances or factors which might possibly enable us to take a more liberal view of the situation. I trust that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.

Mr. Ross: In view of that undertaking from the Lord Advocate I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Lord Dunglass: I notice that some Amendments have been put in the Second Schedule of the Act which deal with the Tweed, and that these Amendments have the effect of seriously reducing the possibility of prosecution for possession of nets. I think it must have been the intention of the Lord Advocate that the wording of Clause 7 should make up for the repeal of those particular sections of the 1859 and the 1857 Acts. I have hardly had time to look at this, but I think that the wording in Clause 7, dealing with the possession of illegal instruments, is not as strong as the wording in the 1857 and 1859 Tweed Fisheries Acts. Although I shall not ask him even to comment on this now unless he wishes to, I shall raise this matter again on Report stage. I would, therefore, be grateful if the Lord Advocate would look into this point with a view to seeing that these powers are not weakened, as I am sure that cannot be his intention.

Mr. Pryde: I regard this Clause as being dangerous in the extreme. It is most ambiguous. It says:
If any person is found in possession of any salmon or trout…
Well, any number of persons can be found in possession of salmon or trout.
or any instrument.
The term "instrument" is not defined in Clause 22, nor in the Act of 1868 and we must therefore ask the Lord Advocate to define what is an instrument. The Clause also says:
If any person is found in possession of any…explosive.
Peebles is a quarrying county and workmen there can be found to be carrying explosives. If they are so found in possession of explosives they will be liable under this Clause.
Subsection (2) says:
Where the court is satisfied that a person charged under the last foregoing subsection obtained possession of salmon or trout—
that is, if the court is satisfied on the evidence of one witness, then he shall be dealt with
in a like manner as if he had been convicted of the same offence.
I would ask the Lord Advocate to clear up those points before we allow this Clause to stand part of the Bill.

The Lord Advocate: May I say to the hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass)


that we will have a look at the point he raised between now and the other stages of the Bill. The general purpose of the Bill is to bring within the framework of one code the procedure and penalties in respect of offences dealt with under the Bill instead of having them separated through different Acts of Parliament. Accordingly, we would much prefer to have one code throughout the Bill dealing with the various rivers in Scotland. But we will look at the point he has raised.
The reason why we did not attempt to define the term "instrument" in the interpretation Clause is because once we start defining certain instruments that may automatically exclude other forms of instruments. As soon as we debar one form of instrument, the wit and ingenuity of the people concerned in this industry—if I may call it that—would soon devise some other form of instrument not mentioned in the definition and would carry out their work by that means. Therefore, we concluded that it would be much better to define the legal method of fishing and designate everything else as an instrument which does not fall within the legal definition of the manner in which fishing can properly be done.
On the question of people such as the roadmen in the county of Peebles being found with explosives in their possession the court must be satisfied that they were in possession of the explosives or any other articles for the purpose of committing an offence. If the men said that they had the explosives because they were going to work further along the road, that would be a complete answer. In fact, I doubt whether there would be a prosecution. But if men have explosives which they are using for the purpose of taking salmon out of a river, that is a different matter. We must leave this question on the broad general basis, as we have done, rather than put into the Bill restrictive definitions which may completely defeat its purpose.

Lord Dunglass: We are only too happy to come within the scope of the new Bill. The point was that 80 per cent. of our convictions came under the appropriate subsection of the old Act.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT OFFENCES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain Duncan: I should like to make certain that Clause 8 covers everything that has been covered in the Clauses which we have discussed so far. Loitering with intent is mentioned in the 1828 Act, and that part of the 1828 Act is being repealed under the Second Schedule to this Bill. It has been part of our law for over 120 years and I do not see why we should alter the procedure in that respect. If my Amendment to this Clause had been called, it would have been moved with the object of keeping the law as it is rather than leaving out this reference to loitering with intent. It is possible that this might leave a loophole for the chap who watches for the police or the bailiff in order to give notice to the people who are catching the fish. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to satisfy me that the new words in this Clause will cover what will be deleted under the Second Schedule.

The Lord Advocate: I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman that assurance.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(SAVING FOR ACTS DONE FOR SCIENTIFIC, &C., PURPOSES.)

Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, after "of," to insert "protecting."
This is a simple Amendment which I think is understandable at sight. It will be remembered that this Clause is inserted so that acts apparently in conflict with the Bill but clearly designed for scientific purposes, such as the improvement or development of stock for which permission had been obtained from the Secretary of State or from a district board, would not be a contravention. When we looked at the matter again, it seemed to us that the provision of the Clause should apply for the purposes of the protection as well as the development of stock and, as this might be doubtful under the Clause as drafted, it was decided to move this Amendment.

Mr. Perkins: I do not fully understand what the Secretary of State for Scotland


means by protection. Does he mean the protection of stock and, if so, against what? Is it protection against pike? In that case will it be in order for a person to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to destroy pike with a gaff, with explosives, by shooting or by snaring?

Mr. McNeil: I suppose that, broadly speaking, the answer would be "Yes." However, I should like to say to the hon. Gentleman whose preoccupation with this subject I well understand—because pike in every walk of life are most unattractive creatures—that if I happened to be the Secretary of State to whom he applied, I should look with a little hesitation upon a proposal to license him to wander about with a gun along rivers looking for pike. I should not do that because I have any doubt about the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I have explained that it is the practice for some attractive diversions to be employed by wrongdoers. I should not like to see this as a general occupation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the end, to add:
Provided that the Secretary of State or the district board shall not give permission in writing under this section to any person to enter on any land without the consent of the owner thereof.
This Amendment would make the operation of Clause 9 more simple. Our object is to prevent any possibility of friction. If these scientific experts have the authority of the Secretary of State to enter upon land for these purposes, to which we have no objection, it would be wise for the owner to be informed and his consent obtained. Otherwise, it might be unfortunate if scientific work was misunderstood and a little friction of a different sort arose on the river bank or even in the river.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel disposed to press this Amendment. I should like to convince him that it is not necessary. This Clause does not give power to the Secretary of State to authorise entry on private land. The only effect of the permission given by the Secretary of State is to secure that the permitted operations do not constitute a contravention of the law.
If we did not have Clause 9, there are many actions which might reasonably and properly be taken to protect and improve stocks of fish in the rivers which would constitute offences under this Bill. We must avoid that and we do it by enabling the Secretary of State to give permission to secure that operations may be carried out which otherwise would be an offence. If he gives permission no offence will be committed; but no person given permission by the Secretary of State to do these things will have any right of entry on any private land against the wishes of the owner of the land. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment is unnecessary and that no powers of entry are given under the Clause as drafted.

Lord Dunglass: I do not fully appreciate the point. The Secretary of State appoints someone to do this and the Joint Under-Secretary says that he cannot go on to a person's property against the owner's wish. What is to prevent it? Does the owner have to charge the man with trespass?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: The noble Lord will appreciate that this Clause says that a person shall not be guilty of any contravention in respect of any act if he does the act for a scientific purpose and if he has the permission of the Secretary of State for so doing. It may very well be the owner of the land himself, or it may be the lessee of the land; or it may be a bailiff or a gamekeeper. It is the person who asks the Secretary of State for permission to do something which is otherwise not permitted under the terms of the Statute. He is given permission by the Secretary of State to do it, and he can then do it, always providing that he has asked the permission of the owner of the land or some other person who can give him power of entry. No authority is given in this Clause for anyone to enter upon land against the wishes of the owner of the land.

Mr. Stuart: In view of what has been said, and of the fact that the Government are quite satisfied that that is the case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(PowERS OF WATER BAILIFFS.)

Lord Dunglass: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out from "which," to the end of line 38, and to insert:
there is reasonable cause to suspect of being used in committing an offence against this Act.
At one time, we thought that it was not worth while moving this Amendment, but perhaps it suggests a wider form of words which might be acceptable to the Secretary of State. The Clause at present says:
reasonable cause to suspect of containing salmon or trout";
and we suggest
reasonable cause to suspect of being used in committing an offence.
It is a slightly wider form of words, and the Amendment has only been put down in case the Secretary of State should prefer it.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, I am in agreement. I have had a look at this, and while I want to follow very closely the wording of the previous Act—and I am not sure that we should not stick to it—all I want to say is that I can see there is a case for changing the wording after "reasonable cause to suspect." However, as the noble Lord inferred, there are places where a boat may be used in estuary fishing, and where it would be easy to establish whether there was reasonable cause to suspect that it did contain salmon. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite, to whom I acknowledge my debt, will permit me to look at this point between now and the Report stage.

Mr. N. Macpherson: May I ask whether the Clause, as it will read when amended, will include the power to stop and search motor boats which are not actually used for fishing, though perhaps they may be? I would call attention to the Maconochie Report, in paragraph 31 of which it is stated:
In this connection we wish to draw attention to the very prevalent use of motor boats by poachers, particularly on the north-west coast and in the Islands.
I would simply ask whether the revised wording would give this power.

Mr. McNeil: I am assured that the Clause as it stands would cover any boat suspected of carrying salmon or trout.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I do not know what is the question you are about to put, Mr. Mathers, and whether it relates to the Amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends or that in my own name.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Mathers): It is necessary for me to put the Amendment in this form in order to save the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson). The question is, "That the word 'is' stand part of the Clause."

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not being asked to move anything. The Amendment which I am putting is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart).

Lord Dunglass: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in view of the assurance given by the Secretary of State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. N. Macpherson: On a point of order. As I understand, from what the Secretary of State has said, that the point of the Amendment standing in my name—in page 3, line 36, after "is," to insert, "or may be"—is fully covered already by this Amendment, I therefore do not propose to move it.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman does not move the Amendment, I shall not, of course, put it. I pass on to the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde).

Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out paragraph (c).
I should like to ask if it will be possible to discuss together all five of the Amendments standing in my name; that is, this Amendment and those in page 3, line 43, leave out paragraph (d); page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (2); page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (3); and to page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (5).

The Temporary Chairman: That is quite in order. I will put them separately if it is necessary.

Mr. Pryde: The question here concerns the powers of water bailiffs under this Bill, and I claim that they are out of all


proportion to the necessity of the situation. I think it is perfectly true to say that if any of our people are caught, they will smile and say "It's a fair cop by the police. There is no reason why I should not go and plead guilty." On the other hand, according to a circular which I think most Scottish Members have received, there is a tendency on the part of poachers to fight, and here I think that the whole set-up of the water bailiffs is unnecessary in this country.
I think it is absolutely necessary for every able-bodied man today to be engaged in industry. In Peebles, we are closing agricultural hostels and even bringing European Voluntary Workers into industry. I do not pretend that there is not a need for river watchers, but I consider that this job could be done by elderly men who are no longer fit for industry and who could be equipped with "walkie-talkie" apparatus in order to get into immediate communication with the police. The police force is the only civilian instrument that can be used in our country for the enforcement of the law.
Under paragraphs (c) and (d) and in lines 1, 4 and 14 on page 4, and under subsections (2), (3), and (5), on page 4, lines 2, 20 and 24, we find that these water bailiffs are given powers which I think are a reflection on this Committee and require some explanation. For instance, subsection (2) says:
Any water bailiff may exercise in any district adjoining that of the district board by which he was appointed any power which he may lawfully exercise in the district of such board.
That is giving a water bailiff carte blanche to leave the Tweed and to come into Midlothian, which is the district adjoining his board. I would point out that I have made no reference to subsection (4) because I think that is the only substantial part of the clause which is constructive and progressive. It says:
Any constable may exercise in relation to any water any of the powers specified in subsection (1) of this section.
The right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) mentioned some correspondence in "The Scotsman." I noted that correspondence, and I noted, too, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. A 19-year-old apprentice engineer made butcher's meat of the fools who

rushed in, because he pointed out that water bailiffs were not the kindly considerate people that some tried to suggest.
I wonder whether my own experience of a water bailiff would be instructive or illuminating to this Committee? One summer day, two of us were fishing a tributary of the Tweed and we had 15 minutes to wait on the bus, having caught nothing, but having thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. It was a nice summer day, and we had been working all the week in bad air and gelignite fumes in the pit, and desired to get out into the country. As I say, we had 15 minutes to wait on the bus, and the man with me decided to go over to the plantation. He was a very good boxer in his day; he was the late Andrew Blake of the Black Watch, and he had fought all over the world. While I was waiting for him, along came a great big man. He said to me, "Been fishing?" I replied, "Yes." He asked where, and I told him, whereupon, with a lot of unnecessary adjectives, he told me that we were poachers. I protested and said that we had not been poaching, but fishing legally. By this time my friend had come back and he said to the man, "I am going to thump you up and down this road." That man made off down the road at a speed which would have beaten the recent Powderhall winner. I looked at Blake and said, "Do you know him, Andrew?" "Know him," he said, "I should think I do; he is the water bailiff." "But what caused him to take up an attitude like that," I asked. "Oh," my friend replied. "that is his stock in trade."
I am not going to say that all water bailiffs are like that, but, invested with the arbitrary and wide powers which this Bill will confer upon them, I do suggest that they are going to be a danger to the average angler. I would ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at this and not to divert local labour required in the national interest to the protection of salmon. According to the same correspondence in "The Scotsman," we find a new term in regard to riparian proprietors; we find them called "salmon proprietors." I have heard of hotel proprietors, but never before of salmon proprietors. "The Scotsman," of course, is a very instructive and thoroughly reliable journal, but I hope and trust that on this occasion my right hon. Friend will


review the powers with which it is proposed to invest water bailiffs under this Bill.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. McNeil: I quite understand, of course, my hon. Friend's anxiety about water bailiffs. The water bailiff is like the policeman, an object of scorn, suspicion and joke by every fellow who touches a rod, but very rarely, I am glad to say, of attack. My hon. Friend seems to be trying to persuade the Committee that if we turned the water bailiffs on to the fields and let the rivers look after themselves, we would find the purposes of this Bill greatly advanced.

Mr. Pryde: I think I made it perfectly clear that I recognised the need for river watchers, and suggested how it could be done.

Mr. McNeil: I am sorry to say that the speech which my hon. Friend thought fit to make on Second Reading has not found favour with either the Government or, indeed, with any section of the Committee, and I must address my remarks to the Bill as it stands. My hon. Friend suggests that we should strip the water bailiffs of their power, several examples of which he has given. In the speech he has just made in his usual reasonable and genial way he has suggested that we would be better without water bailiffs.
I would suggest, in passing, that the dispersal of the European voluntary workers is not due to any particular departure of policy by us, but to the simple fact, of which I think he is aware, that these men have finished the contract under which they came to our country. Some of them are going into industry and others are making contracts with the farmers in the normal labour fashion. But as we have the Bill, we must have the bailiffs, and, if the bailiffs are to do the job, we must give them the necessary powers.
This Bill does not confer upon them any great extension of their powers. Paragraphs (c) and (d), to which my hon. Friend objects, confirm the existing position. His next Amendment, in page 4, line 1, seeks to leave out subsection (2) which, as he says, reads:
Any water bailiff may exercise in any district adjoining that of the district board by which he was appointed any power which he may lawfully exercise in the district of such hoard

I suggest that those words are eminently reasonable. If a group of men are poaching when the bailiff comes along, and if all they require to do is to step across the line, the road or the bridge into the area adjoining, and by that simple method escape all the consequences of the Bill, then we shall look very foolish indeed. It is reasonable to assume that the bailiff will sometimes try to pursue the people whom he has come upon in the act of poaching. I should think it was quite reasonable to expect, not that he could pursue them over the countryside, and not that he should be endowed with the powers of a policeman, but that he should be able to exert himself in the performance of his duty.
My hon. Friend was good enough and considerate enough to the Committee not to pursue in detail his other Amendments, and, therefore, I will not seek to tire the Committee by doing so. All I would say is that except in relation to the adjoining area and except in relation to vehicles which he suspects, the water bailiff is not endowed under the Bill with any new powers and neither is he endowed anywhere, I suggest, with any unreasonable powers. However, if anyone found a water bailiff exceeding his brief, using his powers unfairly, he would have the normal redress of any citizen. He could pursue that water bailiff in the civil courts, and it is reasonable to assume that those courts would not be untender towards such a person.

Mr. Pryde: Suppose he could not produce a witness?

Mr. McNeil: He would have to satisfy the court, as we all have to satisfy the court in sustaining a claim for damages. If he were badly used one would expect the court to listen to him fairly and patiently. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has already made plain his distaste of water bailiffs, will not pursue his Amendment, because no substitute for the water bailiff is suggested and unless a very substantial proportion of our police force is to be diverted the Bill would be endangered.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out "any water," and to insert:
such water or waters as may be specified in the instrument of his appointment purport-


ing to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Perhaps I might also discuss the next Amendment, in line 17, to leave out from "the" to "shall," in line 18, and to insert "said instrument." Will that be convenient?

The Temporary Chairman: Certainly.

Mr. Macpherson: The Committee will always want to look with great care at the creation of any new body of men armed with powers, which is what this subsection does, especially when these people are later described in the Bill as "officers"—although I am aware that it is proposed to try to change the term "officers" to "persons"—and especially when such a body appears from the wording to be given powers to go anywhere in the land. The Wording is quite clear:
Any person appointed by the Secretary of State in that behalf may exercise in relation to any water any of the powers.
That follows
Any constable may exercise in relation to any water any of the powers.
Just as any constable can go anywhere, so, obviously, can any person go anywhere.
The argument I wish to submit to the Committee is that it would certainly appear desirable that those powers should be limited to particular waters. I am not certain, but the wording may permit these appointments to be limited to particular waters, although it does not appear that that is so from the wording as it stands. I suggest it would plainly be undesirable to have a class of supernumary water bailiffs for the country as a whole ready to be despatched to any areas which seem to be particularly marauded for the time being by gangs of poachers. What would be the effect of that? Surely the effect would be that as soon as these new faces appeared the gangs of poachers would move out. The right course must be to appoint local people for a local job, men who will be able to supplement the work of water bailiffs, who will know the inhabitants of the place and will know when new faces appear.
It is generally agreed that the constables are too few for the job that has to be performed. It is also agreed that the

water bailiffs are not sufficiently numerous in the country as a whole; in some places they are almost non-existent. The best thing would be to arrange to have these special nominees or appointees of the Secretary of State added where these conditions exist, particularly as it is now being made so much more difficult for the district boards themselves to provide sufficient water bailiffs. The cost of employing water bailiffs has gone up remarkably. The revenues receivable by the water boards will be going down as a result of the Bill, as they will no longer be getting the fines, and so on. It is therefore important that whoever is appointed should be appointed for a particular job are should not be given powers to roam at large, both because it is undesirable in general to appoint a fresh class of people with powers to roam at large and because the job will be done much more efficiently by people appointed for the job to look after the particular locality.

Mr. T. Fraser: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment. He wants to be sure, I think, that the persons appointed by the Secretary of State will not wander all over Scotland but will confine their activities to particular rivers. In the first place, it is desirable that there should be a power given to the Secretary of State to appoint persons who may do the job normally done by water bailiffs, because there are some quite important rivers in Scotland with salmon in them, on which there are no water bailiffs at all, and for which there is no district board. So the desirability of the Secretary of State having the power to appoint is. I think, accepted by all.
On reflection the hon. Gentleman probably would not want the Secretary of State to be restricted in any way in his appointment of persons, and he would want those persons appointed by the Secretary of State to be of the greatest assistance in controlling crime or in assisting the responsible authorities where offences under this Bill are being committed on a large scale. As the subsection is drafted, the Secretary of State can restrict the area of operation of any person appointed by him, and I think that normally it would be desirable to do so.
There may, however, be exceptional circumstances, as there have been in recent years. In recent years there has been exceptional poaching in some parts


of the country, and if these powers had existed it might be that the Secretary of State could have assisted in some areas where the policing is less than is desirable, or found not able to deal with the extent of the offences. He would have sent persons to assist. It would frequently be helpful to have persons who would normally do this work, and we would not have to rely upon people appointed specially in the area to deal with such circumstances.
Under the subsection as drafted the Secretary of State has power to restrict the area of operation of any person appointed by him. We would prefer not to be pressed to accept this Amendment, which would mean that the person would necessarily have to have his area of operation expressly set out in the instrument of appointment, and that he would not be able to go beyond that area.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Is it the intention, as a general rule, to make appointments for particular areas, or is it the intention to create a kind of river police, uniformed or otherwise?

Mr. Fraser: The normal procedure would be to appoint persons for a particular area and particular waters. Indeed, the subsection is made necessary chiefly because of the fact that we have important salmon rivers in Scotland with no fishery boards and no water bailiffs to look after them. The only person there to keep control would be the constable, if there was not this power of appointment by the Secretary of State, and it will be in these areas that the Secretary of State will normally appoint persons to operate within these areas alone. They would not be a sort of river police to be sent all over the country. They would be for particular areas, mainly where there are no water bailiffs at present.

Mr. Pryde: Would it not be desirable to augment the police to the extent necessary to do this work?

Mr. Fraser: I think that it would need very considerable augmentation of the police force to do this work. Think of the county of Sutherland, which covers many thousands of miles and has a population of 13,000 or 14,000. It has only a very small police force to do the police work of that county. and if the whole of

the work normally done by the river bailiffs was to be undertaken by the police force, very considerable augmentation of the police force would be necessary. I do not think that the local authority and the people who live in the county would be favourably disposed to such a proposition.

Mr. Pryde: I am thinking of the county of Peebles.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I do not necessarily object in any way to the procedure proposed under the Bill and on the lines indicated by the Under-Secretary of State, but before they presented and printed the Bill the Government must have had some idea in mind as to the extent of this new power and appointment of new people. In the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill it is stated that as a result of functions imposed upon the Secretary of State by the Bill the expense is likely to be very small.
Is it, therefore, intended only to appoint two or three of these people, or is it intended to have a regular staff? Are they to be in some form of rural uniform, or what is the intention lying behind it? I am asking for information and not by way of criticism. This new thing, which we did not understand when the Second Reading of the Bill was taking place, so far as we can make out is a good thing to experiment with, particularly in areas where, as the Under-Secretary has said, there are no district fishery boards and very few policemen available.
It may be that this extra addition to the defence forces against salmon poaching will be of very great use, but, at the same time, in the interests of the general public and of the liberty of the subjects in this country, I feel that the warrant which the official gets, whatever he is called, could be as clearly defined as possible. The Under-Secretary may not wish to have that written into the Bill, but the warrant should be quite clear and limit the powers given as much as possible, because we do not want the power of the State to interfere too much with the liberties of the subject.

Mr. Fraser: I hope that I shall be able to convince the Committee that we have no intention of appointing an army of


officials who might be described as river police or given some other designation. What we have in mind in particular—I repeat myself in saying this—are the rivers which are not supervised by the district fishery boards. We think that if the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is to be successfully operated, it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to appoint some small number of persons to do the job which would otherwise be beyond the capacity of the police to do.
These persons—I cannot anticipate the number but the number will certainly be small—will not, of course, be given a policeman's uniform, but they will be given a proper instrument of appointment. They will have to prove to any person they arrest or question that they are properly appointed persons. I do not think that there is anything more which I can say on this matter. I repeat that we cannot possibly anticipate how many will be required to be appointed. Within the areas of the district boards where there are water bailiffs at present it may be necessary to augment the number from time to time. Before we appoint any person in those areas there will be consultations with the district boards concerned. By and large, we think that the persons appointed by the Secretary of State will have their operations confined to those areas in which there are no district boards.

Mr. Pryde: In consultation with the local authorities?

Mr. Fraser: I thought that was taken for granted.

Mr. N. Macpherson: To whom would these people appointed be directly responsible? Presumably, there would be some intermediary authority. Would it be the district board or a higher board?

Mr. Fraser: Normally, they would operate'in areas where there was not a district board, so the only person to whom they would be responsible would be the Secretary of State and his Fishery Department.

Mr. Macpherson: In view of the explanation given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(6) Any person appointed by a Chief Constable in that behalf may exercise in relation to any water any of the powers specified in subsection (1) of this section, are the production of the instrument of his appointment purporting to be signed by a Chief Constable shall be a sufficient warrant for the exercise of any such power.
I realise that the discussion which has just taken place covers, to some extent, the ground of the Amendment which I are my hon. Friends have put down. Our Amendment, I hope, will be agreed by the Government as helping to achieve the objectives which the Bill has in mind are about which the Under-Secretary has been speaking. It is admitted that there are not river boards everywhere are, therefore, there are no water bailiffs working under those boards. It is admitted that poaching takes place as far as possible away from the places where the people concerned are likely to be caught.
It is also admitted that in some of the scattered districts one constable has a wide area to cover are his duties are not confined by any means to looking out for poachers. Therefore, what we suggest —are I think this is a sound Amendment are one upon which I lay considerable store—is that the chief constable who knows the area, should be in a position to appoint people who will be able to exercise the powers which, under the Bill, are to be given to police constables are water bailiffs.
There is very strong support for this Amendment. I might add that the Maconochie Committee deal with this in their Report. They refer to it on two occasions, are I shall read a few words from each paragraph. The Report, in paragraph 33, states:
Any persons authorised for the purpose by the Chief Constables, such as, for instance, Superintendents or Inspectors in the employment of District Boards, or, where no Boards have been constituted, such persons as the Chief Constable may, in the exercise of his discretion, see fit to appoint.
Paragraph 68, dealing with seareh of suspected persons are vehicles, states:
We further recommend that—
(iii) the powers of seareh which the Section meantime confers on any constable or peace officer should be amended are extended to any constable or any person authorised by a Chief Constable. He will, no doubt, be prepared to consider conferring


the powers of search on senior and responsible water bailiffs in districts where Boards exist; where they do not, we think it probable that he will be disposed to confer the powers on dependable persons who may be relied upon to assist the already over-worked police.
That is really the main case I have to make.
As I have said, we lay considerable store by this Amendment, because our object is to help in this matter and to see the Bill in a form in which it can operate satisfactorily. A chief constable must obviously be a responsible person, otherwise he would not be a chief constable. They can be depended upon to appoint people suitable to carry out these duties, which would relieve the Secretary of State to some extent. I do not mean that his powers would be curbed, but that he would be relieved to some degree if chief constables were authorised to do this.
My other particular reason for advocating this is that chief constables know the type of people who can be relied upon to carry out the work. They know a lot of the people who live in these comparatively scattered areas, and they can get the best advice as to the best persons to assist them in seeing that the provisions contained in the Bill and effectively carried out.

8.15 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: I appreciate the purpose behind the Amendment, but I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) to consider its scope. We and seeking here to extend the powers of search of certain persons. That is a power which is normally carried out by an authorised member of the police force in uniform. We and getting on to very difficult ground if we and to extend this power to private persons whose only authority is the badge or warrant of their appointment. I do not think either side would be anxious to extend the power of "lay search." I do not think the Committee would wish to give this power to too many lay persons.
It is true that the Committee suggested that this power should be given to persons nominated by chief constables. On the other hand, that was not extended to appointments made by the district boards. What we have done is to give

power to the district boards to make appointments, and where there and no boards the Secretary of State can make similar appointments. Moreover, the Secretary of State can make appointments, where there is a district board, if it is necessary to increase the existing force. As I said, I do not think the Committee would wish to give these rather extreme powers of search to too many lay appointees, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter from that point of view.
I presume that where there are district boards they will employ a number of bailiffs, and that if they find they are not sufficient for the purpose they will apply to the Secretary of State to exercise his powers and make further appointments. The Secretary of State will undoubtedly give full consideration to any representations, and in making appointments he will take into consultation the people in the area best able to give advice on the matter.

Lord Dunglass: These extra people appointed at the request of the boards will not, I take it, be under the direct authority of the Secretary of State but of the boards.

The Lord Advocate: If they are appointed by the Secretary of State they will be under his authority and will be responsible to him; but that is more academic than real, because, in practice. they will work in collaboration with the district board and these people will work as one large force. In other words, they will work in co-operation.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we cannot give this power to appoint to too many people. We have substituted district boards for chief constables, as recommended by the Committee. In addition, we have added something which is not in the Report, the power to make additional appointments where necessary. Therefore, I think we and covering effectively the same ground and arriving at the same result. It should not go out from the Committee that we and prepared to extend to any large extent the right to appoint people to carry out the rather exceptional powers contained in the Clause.

Mr. J. Morrison: Would the Lord Advocate reconsider this, because I think it is an important proposal, and particu-


larly so in regard to the outlying areas of Scotland? The Lord Advocate was outside the Chamber when the Under-Secretary emphasised the fact that there and vast tracts of land in Sutherland—and, I would add, in Argyll, too—where there is a limited police force. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the part of the country with which I am connected, and I make no apology for intervening in the debate. But let us face the fact that in an island the only person who can be approached with regard to finding suitable people as water bailiffs is, as the Under-Secretary of State said in answer to the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), the policeman.
There may be others, but I should have thought that the police would have been the most obvious chain of contact, and I do hope that, in cases where the appointment of water bailiffs is necessary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the matter, and make it possible for the chief constable to sanction the appointment of a water bailiff, or of a suitable person as a water bailiff, rather than that the whole set-up should go back to the Department of the Secretary of State himself, who, in the very outlying districts, does not have people who can advise him nearly so well as the police.

Lord Dunglass: We should like the Lord Advocate to look at this again, if he would, because it does seem surely an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure. Let us consider the large areas to which my hon. Friend has referred. They want a good many bailiffs. It may be that they want gamekeepers, bird watchers, and people of that kind appointed. They do not, perhaps, remain in their position as gamekeepers or bird watchers for a long time. They may want changes comparatively frequently, and that it should be necessary to have to go to the Department at Edinburgh every time a water bailiff is to be changed', or it is desired to appoint anyone in addition, does seem to me unnecessarily cumbersome, particularly as I should have thought that chief constables would very well have fitted into this picture.
Apprehension will be done by a water bailiff and policeman acting very closely together. The authority over the police is the chief constable. I should have thought that there we should have had the

appropriate link with the Scottish Office. We should like the Secretary of State to have the ultimate sanction, and appoint or even remove the water bailiff, but that he should have to come in on every occasion would seem unnecessarily cumbersome. I wonder if the Lord Advocate would look at this again with a view to simplification in the large areas.

The Lord Advocate: As I have said, we will always look at any representations that are made to us. My own view, however, is that this would not simplify the matter, but would merely multiply the number of people who would have the right of appointment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) will remember that it is clear from the paragraph of the Maconochie Report to which he referred, paragraph 33, that the Chief Constables' Association thought that the right of search should be restricted to constables and should not be extended to anyone else.
We sought to supplement the force, because of the widespread areas with which we and dealing, in two ways—through the district boards' bailiffs, and the Secretary of State, through the persons appointed by him. Well, of course, if we were considering it, and thought of adopting the suggestion contained in the Amendment, we should have to reconsider dropping one of the other means, such as the right of the water bailiff to do it, and leave it in the hands of the police force or of people appointed by the chief constables: because, if we and going to get away from multiplication to simplification, then if we have one body, and one body alone, we shall get ultimate simplification. We will certainly look at the matter again, but I would assure the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord that we have already given this very serious consideration and think that it is the best practicable way of doing it, without being cumbersome.

Mr. Stuart: I realise that the Lord Advocate has taken a great deal of trouble over this, and I am very grateful to him for his explanation, and for saying that he will look at it again. I think it would better serve our purpose at this stage if we all agreed to look at it again. I leave it at that for the moment, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out subsection (7).
I have always made it perfectly clear that I am bitterly opposed to water bailiffs having arbitrary powers invested in them under this Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that the present set-up has not tended to improve the preservation of salmon during the last 30 years. To appoint water bailiffs for the purpose of looking after private property is, in my opinion, a travesty at this time. We and asking the miners to work 12 days a fortnight and even 14 if they can.

Mr. N. Macpherson: On a point of order. I understood that you, Mr. Mathers, called the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member which he has just moved. He appears to be speaking to an earlier Amendment. Can we be told what is happening?

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member moved the Amendment to leave out subsection (7). I was about to point out to him that this is practically a definition subsection and that it did not seem to warrant the repetition of anything of the nature which he had already discussed on another Clause.

Mr. Pryde: I am in your hands Mr. Mathers, and if you decide that I cannot develop the point I am prepared to sit down.

Mr. T. Fraser: I doubt if my hon. Friend wishes to press this Amendment. As he will appreciate subsection (7,a) merely applies the provisions of the Clause to the special powers which the water bailiffs have under the Tweed Acts. There seems to be no reason to withhold the powers to be given for the protection of sections of the river from the water bailiffs. Generally, subsection (7,b) deals with the matter which should have the sympathy of my hon. Friend. It secures that the powers conferred on any person under Clause 10 do not include the power to search:
a dwelling-house or any yard, garden, outhouses and pertinents belonging thereto, or usually enjoyed therewith.
I should have thought that my hon. Friend was not very anxious to delete that paragraph and, therefore, I hope he will not press his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Brigadier Thorp: May I again, very briefly, ask my usual question? Under subsection (2) a water bailiff
may exercise in any district adjoining that of the district board by which he was appointed any power which he may lawfully exercise in the district of such board.
Does that apply to England, and what is a district adjoining a district on the River Tweed?

Mr. T. Fraser: Yes, it would apply in any area of the Tweed. What we have in mind is that a water bailiff might very well be in hot pursuit of some people illegally taking salmon. If the water bailiff came to the end of his district and discovered that the miscreants had got across the fence he could go no further. They could turn round and, putting their fingers to their noses at the water bailiff, say, "You cannot catch us because we and now out of your district." That would be just too bad. We and here providing powers for the water bailiff to go beyond his own jurisdiction to apprehend in another area. That is a problem which runs throughout the country—

Brigadier Thorp: Which country?

Mr. Fraser: Throughout Scotland, and inasmuch as part of the north of England is brought into this Bill, the water bailiff will have the power to follow a miscreant into an adjoining area. That is how I am advised, and it would be quite ludicrous if a water bailiff on the Tweed, in hot pursuit of poachers, could not follow them across because he would be out of his jurisdiction.

Mr. N. Macpherson: With regard to that explanation, I see that Clause 24 (2) says:
Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided this Act shall extend only to Scotland.
It does not seem to me to be expressly provided here that an adjoining area in England shall be covered by this particular Clause.

The Lord Advocate: This is a very technical point, and perhaps I should deal with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp). He knows from Clause 20 of the Bill that any part of that river in England is deemed to be a Scottish river for the purposes of this Bill, and accordingly, a water bailiff may exercise in any adjoin-


ing district, if there be any such district, all the rights which he enjoys in a district under this Clause.
When we come to consider what is a district the interpretation Clause defines it as:
all inland waters within the limits of the district as defined by the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, and for three miles seaward beyond low-water mark, and the River Tweed shall he deemed to be a district; and.
He can apply the powers contained in the Clause in that district and in an adjoining district if there be an adjoining district to satisfy the conditions of that definition. If the adjoining district does not satisfy the conditions of that district it would not be an adjoining definition for the purposes of the subsection and he could not exercise his powers therein. I am sure that that makes it perfectly clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Brigadier Thorp: It does not. As I gather from what has been said, if there is not a district a water bailiff cannot do anything. As I see it there is no power in this Bill to commit part of England outside the district of the River Tweed to Scotland.

Mr. Pryde: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us if he means that a water bailiff appointed by the Tweed Commissioners can come down into Lanarkshire and exercise his authority on the River Clyde?

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(POWERS OF SEARCH.)

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, to leave out "officer," and to insert "person."
It is desirable that Clauses 10 and 11 should be consistent in their wording. In Clause 10 (5), it will be seen that reference is made to
any person appointed by the Secretary of State
whereas in Clause 11 we refer to
any…officer appointed by the Secretary of State.
It is desirable to make the wording consistent, and therefore we propose to continue the word "person" throughout.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out subsection (4).
The subsection reads:
Where a water bailiff has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence against section three or section four of this Act has been committed.…
I wonder whether the Lord Advocate would explain just how far it will be possible to estimate what the water bailiff considers to be "reasonable grounds."

The Lord Advocate: The expression "reasonable grounds for suspecting" is in common form. We must allow discretion to a person who is exercising powers of this nature. If a person who is given such powers uses the powers wrongly and invades the property of a third party, he will become liable in the civil courts for damages for that invasion of the property rights. Therefore, at the end of the day it might be a question for the courts to determine whether he had exercised his powers reasonably and whether he had reasonable grounds for suspecting, but unless we give a person latitude which is in common form, such as we have used in this Clause, it is completely impracticable for him to carry out the powers.
We say that if he has reasonable grounds he may do these things, albeit as a result of the search it is found that there is no evidence to justify a subsequent charge; but those and just the sort of powers the police have at the present time. Therefore, we must allow such a man the latitude of having reasonable grounds for suspicion. On the other hand, if he carried out a search and the person aggrieved could satisfy the court that no reasonable individual could have had grounds for suspecting him and that the man had abused his powers under the subsection to inflict damage on him by the invasion of his property, he would be able to obtain a civil remedy and damages. It must be left on that basis. To try to make it any more restrictive would make the Clause quite inoperable.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) seek to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Pryde: I do not wish to press the Amendment, though I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that he is creating a section of society comparable to the


Ogpu in Russia. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, to leave out "private."
The subsection reads:
…evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found in any vehicle on any private land adjoining any water within his district.
As I understand the Clause as drafted, a water bailiff may search a vehicle parked on private land and stop, if he can, and search a vehicle moving on private land, including, I presume, a private road; but what he cannot do is search a vehicle parked on a public road or on public land and far less stop a suspected vehicle on a public road. This seems to be an open invitation to anyone taking active preparatory steps for any kind of large-scale expedition to avoid parking a vehicle on private land.
Considering, first, that the vehicle is in any case most likely to be parked on a public road so that it can get away quickly, if need be, without calling excessive attention to itself; second, that in remote parts the water bailiff would have the greatest difficulty in conveying a description of the vehicle to the police in time to be of any use at all; and third, that even if he could do so the evidence would by that time almost certainly have been destroyed, there seems to be a strong case for allowing a water bailiff powers to search vehicles parked on the highway or on public land—that is, just off the highway. I suggest that the Lord Advocate should look into this to see whether words can be devised to make that possible. I cannot see how any abuse could arise therefrom.

Mr. T. Fraser: This Amendment goes a little too far. After all, we and giving the water bailiffs considerable powers in giving them the power to search a vehicle which happens to be parked on private land. The vehicle in most cases would be there without any authority or right. They and given here the power to search that vehicle, but to give them the right to search a car on the public highway really seems to me to run a serious risk. I should have thought that no private citizen who has occasion to be driving along a country road which happens to run alongside a river in which there is

salmon or trout being poached should be in a position to be held up and to have the vehicle searched by someone who is not a uniformed constable, someone who has not normally the authority of the law to search.

Mr. N. Macpherson: rose—

Mr. Fraser: The hon.…Gentleman talked about the power—

Mr. Macpherson: Even as the Amendment is proposed there is no power to stop the vehicle, and someone even in uniform would have difficulty in doing so.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but if we accepted the Amendment, it would give the water bailiffs power to search a vehicle on any land. The hon. Gentleman surely has in mind that they would have the power to search a vehicle standing on the public highway.

Mr. Macpherson: Or adjoining any waters.

Mr. Fraser: Or adjoining any waters. We have said "on any private land" because we believe that the vehicle which the bailiff might properly be given the right to examine and to search would be one which would be found on private land in the vicinity of waters that were being poached. To give that person the right to search vehicles on the public highway seems to me to be a different thing. Whether or not he could successfully stop the motorist driving along the highway, I do not know, but if he accosted the motorist who was parked on the public highway, I think as often as not the driver of the vehicle would resent this non-uniformed person demanding the right to search his vehicle and there would in many cases be a serious altercation between the non-uniformed person who is a water bailiff and the owner or driver of a car.
We have gone so far in this Bill that we run the risk of serious abuse of motorists being troubled unnecessarily, and we would be accused of being irresponsible if we gave the water bailiff the right to search a vehicle on the public highway. Therefore, I beg the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: This is not a great matter, but the Joint Under-Secretary of State has made rather a point about the public highway. One envisages


a large arterial road, but what happens in so many places in Scotland is that a farm road of secondary importance runs down to a river. It is a public road, but it is on private property. Of course, no water bailiff would have a power of search unless the terms set out in the subsection were complied with, namely, that he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence had been committed. He must have those reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence before he exercises the power of search.
8.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend who framed the Amendment suggested, very reasonably, that he was not entirely wedded to the particular words of his Amendment, and he asked the Government to look at this matter and see whether some such words could not be incorporated in the Bill. That seems a reasonable request, bearing in mind that so many of these small secondary roads which run down to rivers in Scotland and not private roads but and roads which belong to the inhabitants at large. It is on exactly that kind of road that a car would be parked, and we think it reasonable to give to water bailiffs the power of search if they have reason to suspect that an offence has been commit-ted in respect of that car or vehicle. I support the Amendment.

Sir D. Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North, and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), did less than justice to the Amendment when he said that access roads, like farm roads, running down to the river, and those which and mainly concerned. The public highway, which has been built up throughout the ages invariably follows the course of a river through the valley; that applies all over Scotland, and I could give countless instances.

Mr. T. Fraser: Mr. T. Fraser indicated assent.

Sir D. Robertson: I see that the Ministers on the Front Bench agree with me. This question is worthy of a little further thought for that reason. The power of search is qualified by the fact that the bailiff must have reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence and that the search must be on land adjoining the river where the offence is suspected to have taken place.
As one who took some minor part in locating a consignment of stolen salmon, I should inform hon. Members that that salmon was detected, not on the public highway, but on the railway. I had some little difficulty in persuading the railway authorities to meet my request to open the suspected packages, which contained, not white fish, as had been supposed, but salmon. For those reasons, I appeal to the Government Front Bench to give this matter further thought before making a final decision.

The Lord Advocate: In view of the success of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) in tracing lost property some time ago, we might invoke his assistance in relation to some more recent lost property: Hon. Members will appreciate that there and difficulties in this matter. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland pointed out, many of the roads concerned and main roads which follow a river. An instance which leaps to my mind immediately in connection with a salmon river is the road from Ballater to Braemar, which is a very popular road and more or less follows the river the whole way between those places.
If, however, people using that road by car, and who stopped to look at Balmoral or other beauty spots, were liable to have their cars searched by a water bailiff who had no uniform but merely produced something which might look like either a warrant of authority or a season ticket for a football ground, there might arise a great deal of difficulty and not a few breaches of the peace. That is our great difficulty in the matter.
On the other hand, we quite appreciate that cars may be available adjoining the part of the river where the poaching has taken place and be accessible as a means of quick getaway. It is difficult to reconcile the two points of view. We will certainly look at the matter before the Report stage, but I impress upon those who have spoken that by giving in, as it were, to one side we should be taking away rights which should be enjoyed, not by the other side, namely, the poacher, but by the side which is represented by the members of the public, who and not concerned in poaching or even, perhaps, its discovery. The proposal might mean too much of an invasion of the normal rights of the normal individual when,


although the bailiff may have reasonable grounds, it still creates a certain amount of inconvenience, although the person who is inconvenienced may not want to go to court to assert his civil rights, even though he has been inconvenienced and annoyed. The position must be looked at from this point of view also. I cannot guarantee that we will give effect to this Amendment, or even anything like it, but we will certainly look at it again between now and the Report stage.

Mr. N. Macpherson: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said—and we all appreciate the difficulties he has pointed out—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Duncan: 1 beg to move, in page 5, line 19, to leave out "adjoining any water" and to insert:
in the ownership of a riparian proprietor.
If hon. Members will look at the Clause with this Amendment they will see that it reads:
Where a water bailiff has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence…has been committed and that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found in any vehicle on any private land in the ownership of a riparian proprietor within his district or any district adjoining thereon the said water bailiff may search that vehicle.
I am no lawyer but it is thought by those who have some legal experience that the word "adjoining" may be too restrictive and may be interpreted in a court of law as the bank of a river and nothing else. I have tried to draft a form of words which would be less restrictive but not so wide as to include the public highway and public paths. This is a little wider but not unduly wider because it has to be in the water bailiff's district and, therefore, cannot be on a riparian owner's land at the top of a hill 10 miles away.
It has to be within the district and also on private land and it seems to me that within those restrictions it meets what I should have thought was the purpose of the Bill, namely, to give the water bailiff power over private land near the river—appandntly the word "near" is not a good legal expression, but he would have power to search vehicles where there is reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. and gallant Member said he had tried to find words which were less restrictive than "adjoining any water" and that he thought he had found words less restrictive. We think the words open far too wide a field. Although the hon. and gallant Member says there is a restriction in the words he has used, nevertheless I am inclined to think that in some parts of the country there would be the right of search over a very wide area. One has only to think of some of the large estates of some of the landowners in Scotland, one thinks, for instance, of the Duke of Buccleuch—

Captain Duncan: It has to be within the district.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but one would find that in the district the water bailiff would exercise his authority over far too wide an area, extending for many miles from his normal area of operation from the riverside. It would be within his district, but many miles from the riverside and we think this much too risky. I think the land on which the vehicle is found, and which the water bailiff has a right to search, must be reasonably near water and must not be five or 10 miles away from the water. I am not sure that it could not be at a much greater distance yet still on the private land of a riparian proprietor.
What I have said of an owner in the south of Scotland could equally be said of an owner in the north of Scotland, where some own very large estates. To say that within his district, and within the land owned by the riparian owner, the water bailiff shall be given power to search vehicles many miles from the water's edge is going too far, and we had better stick to the words "adjoining any water."

Captain 'Duncan: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate to have another look at this point. It has been suggested to me by persons with legal knowledge that the words "adjoining any water" mean a river bank and nothing else. That is the whole point of my Amendment, to try to avoid that point arising in a court case and the prosecution losing the case on a technical point about the meaning of a bank of a river or what "adjoining any water" means. My attempt to provide against that may not be a good way. I think it is quite a good way, but if it does not meet with the approbation of


Members of the Committee I am quite prepared to accept other words, if they can be found. I want an assurance from the Lord Advocate that he will look into this point and see that the words "adjoining any water" and not too restricted in that they mean only the river bank.

Mr. T. Fraser: We think that our words will be better than those of the hon. and gallant Member. He has, however, expressed an opinion held by some persons who and knowledgeable in the law that "adjoining any water" means only the river bank.

Captain Duncan: Might mean.

Mr. Fraser: That would seem to make nonsense of an earlier Amendment. If the land "adjoining any water" included only the river bank I should not have thought that there was any need to amend, as the previous Amendment proposed, by the deletion of "private," the power to search land. The Lord Advocate has given an undertaking that we will have another look at this Clause from the point of view of the land in respect of which water bailiffs and to be given the power to search a vehicle. In making that examination we will, if the hon. and gallant Member will agree to withdraw his Amendment, also take into account the proposition he has put forward in moving his Amendment.

Captain Duncan: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(5) Any person appointed by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the last foregoing section may exercise in relation to any water the powers conferred upon a water bailiff by virtue of this section.
This is, in a way, a formal Amendment. We feel sure that the Committee will accept the point that a person who has been appointed by the Secretary of State to exercise powers equivalent to those of a water bailiff under Clause 10 should have similar powers to those conferred on a water bailiff by Clause 11, namely, the right to search vehicles on private land when he suspects, or has reasonable ground for suspecting, that an offence under Clauses 3 or 4 has taken

place. Unless we make provision for that, no person other than a police constable could have those powers in an area where there is no district board.

Amendment agreed to.

The Lord Advocate: I beg to move. in page 5, line 21, to leave out "warrant issued under," and to insert "search authorised by."
At present the requirements of Clause 11 (5) that a female shall be searched by a female—

The Deputy-Chairman: I would draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Amendment I called was that standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 5, line 21.

The Lord Advocate: Yes, that is the one with which I was intending to deal.

Brigadier Thorp: On a point of order. Is not the mistake due to the fact that a new subsection has been inserted and that therefore the subsection we and talking about should now be subsection (6)?

9.0 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: I thought that the Amendment I called was in line 21, to leave out, "warrant issued under," and to insert. "search authorised by."

The Lord Advocate: And I thought I was dealing with that. I am afraid it was just the preamble to my remarks which led to the misapprehension.
At present, subsection (5) provides that a female shall be searched only by a female, but that applies only to a search carried out under the authority of a warrant under subsection (1) of Clause 11. But a search of a person may be made by a constable without a warrant under Clause 11 where it is impracticable for him to apply for one. This Amendment secures that a female will not be searched except by a female in such a case. If we do not make provision for this, what would happen would be that under the Bill a female could only be searched by a female in a case where a warrant had been issued; but a female could be searched by a male in a case where a warrant had not been issued. In those circumstances we feel that is too dangerous a power, and therefore we and seeking this authority in order to protect the rights and interests of the poacheress.

Brigadier Thorp: I wish to make my usual probe. Does this subsection apply to England, and if so, is it an alteration of the English law?

The Lord: The point is that if the offence takes place in an area which is covered by the provisions of this Bill, then this Clause will attach. Search will be available provided that the conditions set out in the Clause have been observed. I quite understand that there is a certain amount of disquiet in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member about restrictions, but I am sure that on reflection he will think they and well observed.

Brigadier Thorp: Is this an alteration of the English law as applied to the district outwith Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, the River Tweed has always been regarded in its entirety as in Scotland for fishing purposes—

Brigadier Thorp: Yes, but not for searching females.

The Lord Advocate: It is because I have a heart that we have inserted this Amendment.

Brigadier Thorp: Is it a new law?

The Lord Advocate: Of course it is a new law so far as the whole Bill is concerned. That is the purpose of our being here tonight.

Brigadier Thorp: The Lord Advocate is not being quite fair. A short time ago he referred to the question of one instead of two witnesses and admitted that that was an alteration of the Scottish law. Now I am asking him, quite simply, whether this Clause or subsection alters the English law?

The Lord Advocate: It is enacting new law—

Brigadier Thorp: For England. in a Scottish Bill?

The Lord Advocate: For the purposes of this Bill; and this Bill, like all other Bills, embraces—if that is the appropriate word—that part of the Tweed in England.

Mr. C. Williams: Then we really have on interesting submission. Here we have a Bill which apparently is to affect the law with regard to certain English females who and not under Scottish law in other

circumstances. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in drawing attention to this. I would say right away that, as we have this interference in English law and the customs of English life, I hope we shall not have to take it further and set up a real measure of Home Rule for England to prevent encroachments on English law.

Mr. Pryde: I wish to appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to take women out of this Bill altogether. I am sure that no one can visualise the girls from the Peebles weaving mills going on poaching expeditions. While it may be true to say that up in the North of Scotland the people do not lead such a cultured life as those in Midlothian and Peebles, I do not see why it is necessary to go to the expense of appointing female searchers simply because there is a likelihood that women may be caught salmon poaching. Is it not possible to cut women out of this Bill completely? It is bad enough to make war on the men of Scotland, but surely a Labour Government should not make war on the women.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out "except by a female."
This Amendment would have the effect of making it impossible for a woman to be searched in pursuance of any warrant issued under this Clause. However, the Lord Advocate has pointed out that it would be possible for a woman to be searched without a warrant. I have already appealed to him to try to cut women out of the Bill completely. I hope that he will consider my suggestion and not make us the laughing stock of the whole country.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Carmichael: I am rather uneasy about the procedure to be adopted under this Clause, which allows any justice of the peace to grant a warrant authorising any bailiff, constable or officer appointed by the Secretary of State to make a search. I am disturbed by the fact that a week may elapse before this is done. If we allow that time to pass, surely the bailiff, if he has any evidence, will have


time to go to the appropriate authority, which is the police, to lodge his complaint. They have the power to make the necessary representations to the sheriff. It is bad at any time to give power to anybody other than the authorised body. the police, to make a search.
While I recognise that the sheriff would be careful before he granted a warrant, there is power here for a justice of the peace to grant a warrant. I do not hold anything against justices of the peace. I am one myself. But I do not think that in many country places a justice of the peace is an appropriate person to have this power.

Mr. McKie: Why not?

Mr. Carmichael: I will try to explain. This may be an exaggeration, but a landlord who has a bailiff who wants a warrant may well be the justice of the peace. I do not think that anyone would like the law of Scotland to get into such a state that the landlord would be able to grant a warrant to his own bailiff to make a search. I ask the Lord Advocate to give us guidance. I consider that, as a period of one week is permitted, it would be wise to lay down that the bailiff should go to the appropriate police authority and let the police make representations to the sheriff. Then the process of issuing a warrant could be carried out under the well-established practice in Scotland—through the police authority.

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has expressed the view that we would not like to make it part of our legislation that a landlord or landowner who was a justice of the peace had a right of giving a search warrant to a water bailiff. In the first place. I do not think that a landlord would exercise that power if he had an interest in the matter. I think it would be contrary to his judicial duties, but, in so far as a justice of the peace may give a warrant to a water bailiff. there is nothing new in that, because, according to my computation, that has been going on in Scotland for 82 years It just shows that our educational process is continuous.
We and not altering the law, but. substantially, merely re-enacting the law to extend the rights contained in the warrant to cover the new conditions which we find

in this Bill. Since the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, there has been power for a sheriff or justice of the peace to issue a warrant to a water bailiff or constable to enter premises and seize gear or fish illegally taken.
In the Clause we and extending this power further in one respect, because we and covering the various circumstances provided for by Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. The reason why we give the right to a water bailiff is simply because he may be the person best able to get the evidence before it disappears. My hon. Friend points out that a warrant will have a life of up to one week and that it can be exercised within that period. The reason for that is that we must make it run for a certain period, because it may not be possible to ingather immediately all the evidence desirable under the warrant.
It may be that the premises and not accessible, and that some time is taken before we can get to the vehicle or store which we wish to search. In those circumstances, the warrant obviously has to have a period of life, and we think that a period of one week is the proper period in those circumstances. In the normal case, one wants to get the evidence as soon as possible, and, therefore, the warrant would be exercised at the very first available opportunity.
My hon. Friend asks why we do not leave it to the police constable, but, in these cases, and particularly in the scattered areas, it may not always be possible to find the constable available at the time to exercise the warrant efficaciously, and if one had to wait for the arrival of a police constable the available evidence might disappear and be lost. In these circumstances, following the precedent which has existed since 1868, we feel that it is perfectly justifiable that the power should be given to people other than constables.

Mr. McKie: I want to say how very glad I am that the Lord Advocate resisted what I might presume to call the preposterous suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) in seeking to impugn the good faith of a justice of the peace in Scotland, who may be called upon to give a search warrant in this respect. I declare that I have no interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said he was a justice


of the peace. I am not, so perhaps I can be relied upon to give a more unbiased point of view than the hon. Gentleman. I think it is a very sad state of affairs when a Scottish hon. Member comes here and suggests that a fellow justice of the peace, in certain circumstances, could not be relied upon to discharge his duties without any motive of self-interest, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take these words to heart, because he must reflect that such a suggestion may very likely prove to be a boomerang. He is at once calling down similar criticisms upon other justices of the peace in Scotland, and perhaps elsewhere.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: There is one short point with which I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to deal. While it is quite true that he has said that the provision he mentioned is a re-enactment, it is also true to say that there is a completely new departure from what we have hitherto known, that is, the giving of the power of search to bailiffs as such. That is something completely new, and it is a great extension of their powers. I want my right hon. and learned Friend to consider for a moment this aspect of it.
I think there will be at any rate a possibility of more prosecutions, and perhaps more serious prosecutions, arising from the fact that the bailiffs have this power of search. We know that the village constable or a member of the police force has a certain respect paid to him. The uniform is recognised, and there is no dubiety about it. But I can well imagine some of our Ayrshire miners, for instance, resenting very seriously being searched by water bailiffs, and I cannot imagine them being at all amenable to being subjected to search by these civilians. While it is quite true to say that these people are appointed and have certain powers, I feel that it would be much safer and that we should be in a much stronger position if this power of search were confined to police constables.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

HOUSES, ACCRINGTON(RE-ASSESSMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: As this is the first occasion when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is appearing at the Box in his expanded capacity, that is, covering local government, may I take the opportunity of congratulating him on the extension of his responsibilities, and also congratulating the Department on having such a suitable Minister so readily at hand? With his magnificent experience of local government on the Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council, the Hertfordshire County Council and in the wider spheres of local government, I can think of no hon. Member of the House who could so well fill that important office.
The subject I wish to bring before the House may appear at first sight of local application only—though it has tremendous importance to a large number of my constituents—but I think hon. Members will find it of general interest, and possibly with much wider implications, particularly if it is looked at in the light of the fact that there is this hiatus between now and the general reassessment of property which, according to the latest announcement, is due to take place in 1953.
The question with which I am concerned affects 659 post-war houses in Accrington, at three sites at Willows Lane, Richmond Road and Fern Gore Estates. Those post-war houses were assessed by

the Accrington Corporation in the normal way in 1948. Unfortunately, Accrington is not yet a county borough, and in this and similar respects they are always subject to the overriding authority of the Lancashire County Council. About 12 months later the Lancashire County Council said, "These assessments are not high enough", and they tabled proposals for higher assessments.
I do not complain that the county valuation officer, in so doing, exceeded his right and, indeed, his duty to seek more uniformity as between the different rating areas of the county, but I ask the House to note the date on which this action was taken. The county valuation officer tabled those new proposals on 25th March, 1949, which means, that under the 1925 Rating and Valuation Act, those proposals had a retrospective effect automatically until the beginning of that financial year. In other words, they would take effect from 1st April, 1948.
It may be considered as very smart work on the part of the county valuation officer to get an extra year at the higher rateable value. I would describe it as slick. I object straight away to what I regard as sharp practice on the part of the county valuation officer in coming along, in the last week of the financial year, and making proposals which back date for 12 months.
Hon. Members can imagine what the effect was on the tenants concerned. I wish to emphasise that this action was taken under the 1925 Rating and Valuation Act and not, as certain people locally have been suggesting, under the 1948 Local Government Act. It was the 1925 Act which had this retrospective effect and which has caused all the trouble. Alarm and despondency was caused not only among the tenants, but also among the local authorities affected. It was not the tenants but the local authorities which lodged objections in the first place to the higher assessments.
Certain assessments at Bacup were taken to quarter sessions. The decision went against the Bacup Corporation and the Bacup assessments were confirmed. The local assessment committee concerned which is the Hastinglea local assessment committee which covers the towns of Accrington, Bacup, Haslingden and Rawtenstall, had postponed the hearing of the objections to the original proposals pending a settlement of the quarter sessions case on the Bacup assessments. That was a perfectly natural thing to do, but it meant that there was delay in deciding what these new assessments were to be.
There was further delay caused by the operation of the 1948 Act involving the change over to the new procedure under which the valuation officer of the Inland Revenue Department comes into the picture. He automatically had to take ever the functions of the county valuation officer. These delays meant that the matter was dragging on, and if the assessments were to be confirmed the arrears were piling up. There was further delay until eventually, on 16th October, 1950, the local valuation court heard seven test cases, representing various types of houses.
Therefore, we had that time from the first proposals on 25th March, 1949—one and a half years ago and, with retrospective effect, a total of two and a half years—during which arrears were piling up. It is obvious that this delay was vexatious. It was unfortunate and it meant a further burden if the assessments were to be confirmed; but this delay was in no way the fault of those tenants. That point is most important when we consider the validity of their complaint. At the local valuation court the case was handled on behalf of Accrington Corporation by the borough treasurer acting, in effect, in the interests of the tenants. In my opinion, he put up a splendid case on their behalf.
The net result of the deliberations of the local valuation court, added to subsequent negotiations, was that of 464 cases involved. 310 had £1 taken off the proposed new assessment; 357 had decreased gross assessments which does not affect their actual payments but does affect the assessment of their water rates; and in the other cases the assessments

were confirmed. In most cases there were increases ranging up to Is. 10d. a week in the inclusive rent—that is, rent plus rates —and the arrears amount in most cases to about £12 for each tenant. It will be agreed that £12 is a considerable amount for a working-class family to find in these days. It will cause considerable hardship if it is enforced.
The local council, who have been acting all the way through up to now in the interests of the tenants, have tried to ease the position by offering them a spread-over of 18 months, during which this debt can be wiped out, but, even spread over 18 months, £12 is still a considerable sum. I think the tenants are justified in feeling that they have had rather a raw deal over the whole business. It is perfectly true that the tenants did have the right to appeal to the lands tribunal within 21 days after the hearing by the local valuation court, and it may be put up against them that they did not exercise that right. I am given to understand that they did not do so because they had decided, through their tenants' association, that the time had come when these cases could no longer be looked at individually, but that the matter had become one of principle which should -be decided as a collective matter of principle and not by taking individual cases to the lands tribunals.
This is where I come back to the peculiar position of the Accrington Town Council. They put up their borough treasurer to make a very good defence of the lower assessments, acting in the interests of the tenants. As a result of this decision, the council find themselves in the position of being forced to collect the increased rates from the tenants whom they have been defending up to now. The local council do not want to take this action and do not want to have the assessments of the houses increased, but they are bound, as agents of the county council, to take this action. Therefore, it is very unfortunate indeed, both from their point of view and that of the tenants affected, that they now find themselves faced with a collective protest from the tenants, who, under legal advice, are now refusing, I understand, to pay the increased amounts, as the only possible protest left to them.
The position is one which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. De la Bère), would describe as


"thoroughly unsatisfactory." I am not certain what the Minister can do about it. I make no complaint at all about the attitude of his Department, or, rather, of the Ministry of Health, so far, and I acknowledge the very helpful letter which I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health some time ago about this matter, but it does seem to me that, in the first place, these new proposals should not have been tabled so far on in the financial year. Indeed, I think that, having got to that stage, it would have been far better to leave the re-assessment of that property until the general re-assessment that will take place all over the country, which was originally fixed for 1952 but has now been postponed to 1953.
If that postponement cannot take place, I suggest that, perhaps, either the whole or part of these arrears might very well be waived. I suppose that that would have to be done by the county council, but, anyway, I think there is a case for consideration either by the Ministry or by some sort of local arbitration, for the whole or part of the arrears to be waived. It may be that the Minister may have some other solution to propose.
The final question which I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether this is an isolated case or whether similar action has been taken in other parts of the country; whether this is a widespread action on the part of valuation officers, or whether this is something peculiar to my own constituency and the surrounding districts, because, if it is, it emphasises all the more the injustice which I have been attempting to explain.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I am well aware that the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has put forward a very detailed case that calls for a very careful reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, and therefore I shall not trespass for more than a minute or two on the time available to the hon. Gentleman. I think it is not a bad thing to add our hope from this side that the new Department responsible for housing is going to show some results that were lamentably lacking when it was under the hon. Gentleman's predecessor. It is rather a case of King Midas adjudicating in a case between two flautists; he heard the first, and gave the prize to the second.

The hon. Gentleman's results likewise cannot be worse.
The hon. Member for Accrington seemed concerned about the dangers of retrospective legislation he showed how it had worked to the detriment of tenants and councils in this particular instance, and I hope he will have a satisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. The other point I wish to place on record is that assessments are dependent on the value of property, and I believe that, next to the shortage of houses, which is obviously the outstanding social evil of today, the cost of houses and the consequent rents are the next greatest evil. I hope that the new Department will bear in mind that great efforts are needed to keep down the cost of houses so that these assessments which are the subject of tonight's debate are not going to be too high.
I think this is not an inappropriate moment to reinforce our plea for more houses to meet the ever-growing lists by having slightly smaller houses. I do not want to trespass on the time which the Parliamentary Secretary ought to take in answering the very detailed point put to him by the hon. Member for Accrington, but I hope that when this debate is over he will keep the two propositions that I have presumed to underline well in his mind and in that of his right hon.Friend.

10.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I hope the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely, but I would like to say how glad I am to hear from him that his policy for reducing housing costs is to reduce housing standards.

Mr. Nicholls: Sizes, not standards.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman is not going to get me away from the point raised by my hon. Friend through that interjection.
I am sure that my hon. Friend, whom I thank for his kind remarks at the begin, ping of his speech, will not expect me to deal with the question of the merits or otherwise of a particular assessment. All I can deal with is the machinery for arriving at these assessments, and the


machinery used in this particular case was the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the valuation principles of which remain in operation right up to the time that the 1948 Act becomes fully effective in 1953. The machinery which was in operation when this first arose, consisted of the local rating authority—the borough council—and the county valuation committee and had the responsibility throughout the whole period to see that there was uniformity of assessment in order that there should be fairness as 'between one ratepayer and another.
In the opinion of the Lancashire County Council rating valuation committee, Accrington had been unfair to other ratepayers in the county by assessing these council houses at too low a rate. Therefore, inasmuch as these people were thereby not only paying less for their own local rate in Accrington, but also a lower proportion of the county rate for the services over the whole county, it was their duty to call attention to this lower assessment, and to give to the body who had the right to determine whether it was correct or not—then the local assessment committee—the opportunity to decide whether the local rating valuation committee—the borough council—or the county council were in fact right in their assessment.
That was put to the assessment committee, as my hon. Friend said, in March, 1949. When it got to the assessment committee for hearing, the committee appreciated that there was another case for the Bacup area in which a similar set of circumstances arose. There the matter had been taken to what was the appeal court for the assessment committee, the Quarter Sessions. Quite rightly, the local assessment committee said that as there was then a similar case or set of cases before the Quarter Sessions which would in fact be a test case, it would defer the hearing until the decision of the Quarter Sessions was made, and that in the light of that decision these appeals would fail or succeed.
Then came the Quarter Sessions hearing and the county valuation committee's opinion of values in the Bacup case was upheld by the Quarter Sessions. That, in the opinion of the local assessment committee determined

the line of action likely to be taken in these cases from Accrington. But in the meantime the machinery of valuation had changed. I make this point—just the machinery of valuation had changed. The machinery of the 1948 Act came into operation on 1st February, 1950. That machinery provides that the old county valuation committee goes out, and in fact the valuation officer of the Board of Inland Revenue takes responsibility for valuations throughout the area. Instead of the assessment committee, there is set up the local valuation court to hear questions of differences of opinion.
As in fact the assessment committee's hearing in this case had been deferred, then it was the plain duty of the Board of Inland Revenue's valuation officer to take the case to the new court for decision. That procedure did not take place until 16th October, 1950, when in fact the decision was made that the county valuation committee's original valuation, which was the subject of the appeal, was fair and reasonable, generally speaking. Certain variations were made in the proposals, but in the main they were upheld.
Now I arrive at the point to which my hon. Friend referred, that of taking the re-assessment back to 1st April, 1948. Surely that is right, because what, in fact, had the Lancashire County Council's valuation committee said? It said that these assessments were too low, and because of that these people were paying less than their fair share towards the cost of local government services throughout the county. For one reason or another, the hearing of the county's claim had to be deferred. My hon. Friend said that that is not the fault of the tenants; I agree, but I must point out that it is also not the fault of the county. The delay could have been the fault of the tenants, because, if they had not appealed, the new valuations would automatically have come into force when the assessment was made.

Mr. H. Hynd: The council appealed.

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, but in fairness it should be pointed out that, it having been decided that the assessment was wrong, it was right that it should go back to the time that the proposal to alter it was made. Under the Act of 1925, the


new assessment applies, irrespective of the time the actual appeal is made, back to the commencement of the financial year in which the proposal is made.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the council have the power to remit the accumulated reserves?

Mr. Lindgren: It amounts to this; some people are paying too much or too little in relation to other people, and if one remits to some, one is placing an unfair burden on other persons in the particular locality. This rule of taking back the coming into effect of the new assessment to the commencement of the financial year applied in the 1925 Act, and applies in the 1948 Act, and it applies whether there are increases or decreases. If people have had a decrease in rateable value, then there will be a refund and this principle must equally apply if the assessment goes up. In such cases where, in fact, one had block decisions in the main going before the assessment court prior to the war or during the war years, these were mostly appeals by individual ratepayers against too high assessments and seldom was there an appeal by a local authority for a general re-assessment.
I think that was a correct thing to do. My hon. Friend asked if this was an isolated case or whether it was one which could be found generally over the whole country. Let us be quite clear. It has been the responsibility of the local authorities to apply the 1925 Act; it was the responsibility with the old county valuation officer and it is the responsibility of the valuation officer of the Board of Inland Revenue. To suggest that until the new Act comes into operation no one should be concerned about the fairness

of one ratepayer's case compared with another in the incidence of valuation is, I submit, taking things a little far. Counties had in the old days, and the Board of Inland Revenue inspectors have now, to apply the Acts as they exist and where there is unfairness, then the applicants are met. It is not altogether usual to get group cases such as this but they do arise because of differences of opinion between a minor authority and the county council over what is considered to be the proper valuation.
To the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) I would make the point that this is not a question of retrospective legislation. It is, in fact, a question of the operation of an Act of Parliament which does say that where there is a change in value it should date back to the commencement of the financial year, unless a change in value arises involving a physical change in the condition of the property such as an additional room or garage. In such cases the altered assessment takes effect from the date of the physical change.
I am afraid I have not been able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) much change in reply to the excellent case he put on behalf of his constituents, but I have tried to make it clear that in fact the Lancashire County Council and the valuation department of the Inland Revenue have, in so far as it is within their power, applied the Acts of Parliament in fairness to all ratepayers within the county of Lancashire.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.